ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
14

Article 160 of the Tax Code, in the version in force during 2007, provided: ‘Simplification measures (1) The suppliers and recipients of the goods or services referred to in paragraph 2 shall apply the simplification measures provided for in this article. In accordance with Article 153, the registration of both the supplier and the recipient as taxable persons for VAT purposes is a mandatory requirement for application of the simplification measures. (2) The goods and services to which the simplification measures shall apply are the following: … (b) buildings and parts of buildings and land of all kinds the supply of which is subject to taxation; … (3) Suppliers shall include in invoices issued for the supply of goods mentioned in paragraph 2 the words “reverse charge mechanism”, without indicating the tax relating thereto. The recipients shall state the tax relating thereto on the invoices issued by the supplier, on which they shall state both the amount of tax received and the amount of tax deductible in the VAT declaration. No VAT payment shall take place between the seller and the recipient in respect of the transactions subject to the simplification measures. … (5) Both the supplier and the recipient shall apply the provisions of this article. If the supplier has not indicated “reverse charge procedure” in invoices issued for goods or services falling within paragraph 2, the recipient shall apply the reverse charge procedure, shall not pay the tax to the supplier, shall include on his own initiative in the invoice the words “reverse charge procedure” and perform the obligations laid down in paragraph 3.’
24

In those circumstances, the Augstākās tiesas, Administratīvo lietu departaments (Supreme Court, Administrative Cases Division) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is [point (a) of the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU applicable to a dispute concerning the rates laid down by a national copyright management organisation if that entity also collects remuneration in respect of works of foreign authors and the rates laid down by it may be a deterrent to the use of those works in the Member State in question? (2) For the purpose of defining the concept of “unfair prices” used in [point (a) of the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient — and in which cases — to draw a comparison between the prices (rates) in the market in question and the prices (rates) in neighbouring markets? (3) For the purpose of defining the concept of “unfair prices” used in [point (a) of the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient to use the PPP index based on gross domestic product? (4) Must the comparison of rates be made for each separate segment thereof or in relation to the average level of the rates? (5) When must it be considered that the difference in the rates examined in connection with the concept of “unfair prices [(rates)]” used in [point (a) of the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU is appreciable, with the result that it is incumbent upon the economic operator enjoying a dominant position to demonstrate that its rates are fair? (6) What information can reasonably be expected from an economic operator to prove the fair nature of the rates for works covered by copyright, within the scope of [point (a) of the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, if the cost of those works cannot be determined in the same way as that of products of a material nature? Is it solely a question of the cost of administering the copyright management organisation? (7) In the event of infringement of competition law, is it appropriate to exclude from the business turnover of a copyright management organisation, for the purposes of determining a fine, the remuneration paid to authors by that economic operator?’
9

Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, entitled ‘Emergency measures for food and feed of Community origin or imported from a third country’, is worded as follows: ‘1. Where it is evident that food or feed originating in the Community or imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned, the Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State, shall immediately adopt one or more of the following measures, depending on the gravity of the situation: (a) in the case of food or feed of Community origin: (i) suspension of the placing on the market or use of the food in question; (ii) suspension of the placing on the market or use of the feed in question; (iii) laying down special conditions for the food or feed in question; (iv) any other appropriate interim measure; (b) in the case of food or feed imported from a third country: (i) suspension of imports of the food or feed in question from all or part of the third country concerned and, where applicable, from the third country of transit; (ii) laying down special conditions for the food or feed in question from all or part of the third country concerned; (iii) any other appropriate interim measure. 2. However, in emergencies, the Commission may provisionally adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1 after consulting the Member State(s) concerned and informing the other Member States. …’
8

Headed ‘Farmers etc.’, section 54 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (‘the 1994 Act’) states: ‘(1) The Commissioners may, in accordance with such provision as may be contained in regulations made by them, certify for the purposes of this section any person who satisfies them— (a) that he is carrying on a business involving one or more designated activities; (b) that he is of such a description and has complied with such requirements as may be prescribed; … ... (3) The Commissioners may by regulations provide for an amount included in the consideration for any taxable supply which is made— (a) in the course or furtherance of the relevant part of his business by a person who is for the time being certified under this section; (b) at a time when that person is not a taxable person; and (c) to a taxable person, to be treated, for the purpose of determining the entitlement of the person supplied to credit under sections 25 and 26, as VAT on a supply to that person. (4) The amount which, for the purposes of any provision made under subsection (3) above, may be included in the consideration for any supply shall be an amount equal to such percentage as the Treasury may by order specify of the sum which, with the addition of that amount, is equal to the consideration for the supply. (5) The Commissioners’ power by regulations under section 39 to provide for the repayment to persons to whom that section applies of VAT which would be input tax of theirs if they were taxable persons in the United Kingdom includes power to provide for the payment to persons to whom that section applies of sums equal to the amounts which, if they were taxable persons in the United Kingdom, would be input tax of theirs by virtue of regulations under this section; and references in that section, or in any other enactment, to a repayment of VAT shall be construed accordingly. (6) Regulations under this section may provide— ... (b) for the cases and manner in which the Commissioners may cancel a person’s certification; ... (8) In this section “designated activities” means such activities, being activities carried on by a person who, by virtue of carrying them on, falls to be treated as a farmer for the purposes of Article 25 of [Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)] (common flat-rate scheme for farmers), as the Treasury may by order designate.’
18

Article 15 of the law provides: ‘1. In the case of a vehicle (or, for the purposes of applying this paragraph, of coupled vehicles) with a maximum laden weight of no more than 12 tonnes, being driven under a transport licence used for local transport, a tax of 10000 [Hungarian forint (HUF)] [(approximately EUR 33)] shall be paid in respect of both the outward and the return journey, whereas, in the case of a vehicle with a maximum laden weight of more than 12 tonnes, being driven under a transport licence used for local transport, a tax of HUF 30000 [(approximately EUR 100)] shall be paid in respect of both the outward and the return journey. In the case of a vehicle with a maximum laden weight of no more than 12 tonnes, being driven under a transport licence used for transit purposes (which shall include use of an authorisation issued by a third country), a tax of HUF 20000 [(approximately EUR 66)] shall be paid in respect of both the outward and the return journey, whereas, in the case of a vehicle with a maximum laden weight of more than 12 tonnes, being driven under a transport licence used for transit purposes, a tax of HUF 60000 [(approximately EUR 200)] shall be paid in respect of both the outward and the return journey. The obligation to pay the tax pursuant to the aforementioned provisions shall also apply where the transport licence is not valid, or where the person liable for the tax used the licence unlawfully, or where he or she drove the vehicle without any transport licence. 2. The amounts of tax laid down in paragraph 1 shall be payable in respect of an outward or a return journey and for a stay on Hungarian territory not exceeding 48 hours per journey. If the stay is longer, the tax shall be paid, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 above, in respect of each additional 48-hour period or part thereof. … 3. The amount of the tax payable under paragraph 1 shall be paid through the purchase of a revenue stamp to be affixed to the road transport licence — in the case of local transport, for the entire duration of the journey and, in the case of transport for transit purposes, separately for the outward and the return journey — at the time of entry into Hungarian territory. Once the stamp/stamps is/are affixed, the person liable for the tax is required to mark on it/them the date and time of entry (year-month-day-time). If the obligation to pay the tax (revenue stamp) is not met, it is possible to drive with a transport licence that is subject to tax and not incur a penalty only within a maximum radius of 5 km from the point of entry into Hungarian territory.’
30

In those circumstances, the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Oporto), which has expressed doubts concerning the correct interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 93/104 and Article 5 of Directive 2003/88, decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) In the light of Article 5 of [Directive 93/104] and Article 5 of Directive 2003/88 …, as well as Article 31 of the Charter …, in the case of workers engaged in shift work and rotating rest periods, in an establishment that is open every day of the week but which does not have continuous 24-hour productive periods, must the compulsory day of rest that a worker is entitled to be granted in each period of seven days, that is, at the latest on the seventh day following six consecutive working days? (2) Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that, in relation to those workers, the employer is free to choose the days on which he grants a worker, for each week, the rest periods to which he is entitled, so that the worker may be required, without overtime pay, to work for up to ten consecutive days (for example, from Wednesday of one week, preceded by a rest period on Monday and Tuesday, to Friday of the following week, followed by a rest period on Saturday and Sunday)? (3) Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that the uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours may be granted on any of the calendar days in a given period of seven calendar days, and the subsequent uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added the 11 hours of daily rest) may also be granted on any of the calendar days in the period of seven calendar days immediately following the period mentioned above? (4) Do those directives and provisions, taking into account also the provision in Article 16(a) of Directive 2003/88 …, preclude an interpretation to the effect that a worker, instead of taking an uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added the 11 hours of daily rest) for each period of seven days, may take two periods, which may or may not be consecutive, of uninterrupted rest of 24 hours in any of the four calendar days of a given reference period of 14 calendar days?’
24

In that regard, it must be stated that the wording of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42 was amended by Article 2 of Directive 2007/47, recital 6 of which states that software is a medical device in its own right when specifically intended by the manufacturer to be used for one or more of the medical purposes set out in the definition of a medical device. That recital further states that software for general purposes, when used in a healthcare setting, is not a medical device. The EU legislature thus made unequivocally clear that, in order for software to fall within the scope of Directive 93/42, it is not sufficient that it be used in a medical context; it is also necessary that the intended purpose, defined by the manufacturer, is specifically medical (judgment of 22 November 2012, Brain Products, C‑219/11, EU:C:2012:742, paragraphs 16 and 17). Software which does not meet that condition may fall within the scope of that directive only if it is an accessory to a medical device within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) thereof. That software should then be treated, for the purposes of that directive, in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, as a medical device in its own right.
10

In those circumstances, the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Siracusa (Provincial Tax Court, Syracuse) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Having regard to Article 11(C)(1) and the second sentence of Article 20(1)(b) of [the Sixth Directive] in relation to the downward adjustment of the taxable amount and the adjustment of the VAT charged on taxable transactions in cases where the consideration agreed by the parties remains totally or partially unpaid, is it compatible with the principles of proportionality and effectiveness guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, and the principle of neutrality that governs the application of VAT, to impose limits that make it impossible or excessively costly — in terms of time too, in connection with the unforeseeable duration of an insolvency procedure — for the taxable person to recover the tax on the consideration which remains totally or partially unpaid? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the principles set out above that a provision — such as Article 26(2) of [the Presidential Decree] — makes the right to recover the tax contingent on proof that insolvency procedures have previously been unsuccessfully conducted, that is to say, in accordance with case-law and the practice of the tax authority of the Member State, the recovery must take place following definitive failure to distribute the assets, or, failing that, a final decision closing the insolvency procedure, even where such procedures may reasonably be deemed to be uneconomic because of the amount of the claim, the prospects of recovery and the costs of the insolvency procedures, and given that, in any event, those conditions could be met only years after the date of opening of the insolvency?’
6

Article 8 of that regulation, entitled ‘Supply standard’, is worded as follows: ‘1. The Competent Authority shall require the natural gas undertakings, that it identifies, to take measures to ensure gas supply to the protected customers of the Member State in the following cases: (a) extreme temperatures during a 7-day peak period occurring with a statistical probability of once in 20 years; (b) any period of at least 30 days of exceptionally high gas demand, occurring with a statistical probability of once in 20 years; and (c) for a period of at least 30 days in case of the disruption of the single largest gas infrastructure under average winter conditions. The Competent Authority shall identify the natural gas undertakings referred to in the first subparagraph by 3 June 2012 at the latest. 2. Any increased supply standard going beyond the 30-day period referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 or any additional obligation imposed for reasons of security of gas supply shall be based on the risk assessment referred to in Article 9, shall be reflected in the Preventive Action Plan and shall: (a) comply with Article 3(6); (b) not unduly distort competition or hamper the functioning of the internal market in gas; (c) not impact negatively on the ability of any other Member State to supply its protected customers in accordance with this Article in the event of a national, Union or regional emergency; and (d) comply with the criteria specified in Article 11(5) in the event of a Union or regional emergency. In a spirit of solidarity, the Competent Authority shall identify in the Preventive Action Plan and the Emergency Plan how any increased supply standard or additional obligation imposed on natural gas undertakings may be temporarily reduced in the event of a Union or regional emergency. 3. After the periods defined by the Competent Authority in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, or under more severe conditions than those defined in paragraph 1, the Competent Authority and natural gas undertakings shall endeavour to maintain, as far as possible, the gas supply, in particular for protected customers. 4. The obligations imposed on natural gas undertakings for the fulfilment of the supply standards laid down in this Article shall be non-discriminatory and shall not impose an undue burden on those undertakings. 5. Natural gas undertakings shall be allowed to meet these obligations at a regional or Union level, where appropriate. The Competent Authority shall not require the standards laid down in this Article to be met based on infrastructure located only within its territory. 6. The Competent Authority shall ensure that conditions for supplies to protected customers are established without prejudice to the proper functioning of the internal market in gas and at a price respecting the market value of the supplies.’
46

It is therefore for the referring court to determine whether Ms Vega González is in a situation comparable to that of workers employed on a permanent basis by the same authority for the same period (see, by analogy, judgments of 18 October 2012, Valenza and Others, C‑302/11 to C‑305/11,EU:C:2012:646, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited; of 13 March 2014, Nierodzik, C‑38/13, EU:C:2014:152, paragraph 32; and of 14 September 2016, de Diego Porras, C‑596/14, EU:C:2016:683, paragraph 42). If, on completion of that assessment, the referring court finds inequality of treatment, it would then have to ascertain whether it may be justified on ‘objective grounds’ within the meaning of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement, that is to say, by precise, specific factors, characterising the employment condition in question, in the particular context in which it occurs and on the basis of objective, transparent criteria that enable it to be ascertained whether that unequal treatment in fact meets a genuine need, is appropriate for achieving the objective pursued and is necessary for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2016, de Diego Porras, C‑596/14, EU:C:2016:683, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
10

Article 4 of that directive provides: ‘1. Member States may consider it the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all the elements needed to substantiate the application for international protection. In cooperation with the applicant, it is the duty of the Member State to assess the relevant elements of the application. 2. The elements referred to in paragraph 1 consist of the applicant’s statements and all the documentation at the applicant’s disposal regarding the applicant’s age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection. 3. The assessment of an application for international protection is to be carried out on an individual basis and includes taking into account: (a) all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, including laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied; (b) the relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant including information on whether the applicant has been or may be subject to persecution or serious harm; (c) the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant, including factors such as background, gender and age, so as to assess whether, on the basis of the applicant’s personal circumstances, the acts to which the applicant has been or could be exposed would amount to persecution or serious harm; (d) whether the applicant’s activities since leaving the country of origin were engaged in for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for applying for international protection, so as to assess whether those activities would expose the applicant to persecution or serious harm if returned to that country; (e) whether the applicant could reasonably be expected to avail himself or herself of the protection of another country where he or she could assert citizenship. … 5. Where Member States apply the principle according to which it is the duty of the applicant to substantiate the application for international protection and where aspects of the applicant’s statements are not supported by documentary or other evidence, those aspects shall not need confirmation when the following conditions are met: (a) the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his application; (b) all relevant elements at the applicant’s disposal have been submitted, and a satisfactory explanation has been given regarding any lack of other relevant elements; (c) the applicant’s statements are found to be coherent and plausible and do not run counter to available specific and general information relevant to the applicant’s case; (d) the applicant has applied for international protection at the earliest possible time, unless the applicant can demonstrate good reason for not having done so; and (e) the general credibility of the applicant has been established.’