ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
19

Article 313 of the Implementing Regulation, as in force during the period at issue in the main proceedings, provided as follows: ‘1. Subject to Article 180 of the Code and the exceptions listed in paragraph 2 of this Article, all goods in the customs territory of the Community shall be deemed to be Community goods, unless it is established that they do not have Community status. 2. The following shall not be deemed to be Community goods unless it is established in accordance with Articles 314 to 323 that they do have Community status: (a) goods brought into the customs territory of the Community in accordance with Article 37 of the Code; (b) goods in temporary storage or in a free zone or free warehouse; (c) goods placed under a suspensive procedure. By way of derogation from point (a) of this paragraph and in accordance with Article 38(5) of the Code, goods brought into the customs territory of the Community shall be deemed to be Community goods unless it is established that they do not have Community status: — where, if carried by air, the goods have been loaded or transhipped at a Community airport, for consignment to another airport in the customs territory of the Community, and carried under cover of a single transport document drawn up in a Member State, — or where, if carried by sea, the goods have been shipped between ports in the customs territory of the Community by a regular shipping service authorised in accordance with Articles 313a and 313b.’
5

Annex XII to that act is entitled ‘List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Poland’. Point 8 of that annex, entitled ‘Transport policy’, states in paragraph 3 that Directive 96/53 is to apply as follows: ‘31996 L 0053: Directive [96/53], as last amended by: — 32002 L 0007: Directive 2002/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of [18 February 2002] [(OJ 2002 L 67 p. 47)]. By way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Directive [96/53], vehicles complying with the limit values of category 3.4 of Annex 1 to that Directive may only use non-upgraded parts of the Polish road network until 31 December 2010 if they comply with Polish axle-weight limits. As from the date of accession, no restrictions may be imposed on the use, by vehicles complying with the requirements of Directive [96/53], of the main transit routes set out in Annex I to Decision [No] 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network [(OJ 1996 L 288, p. 1)]. Poland shall adhere to the timetable set out in the tables below for the upgrading of its main road network, as contained in Annex I to Decision [No 1692/96]. Any infrastructure investments involving the use of funds from the [EU] budget shall ensure that the arteries are constructed or upgraded to a load bearing capacity of 11.5 tonnes per axle. In line with the completion of the upgrading, there shall be a progressive opening of the Polish road network, including the network as contained in Annex I to Decision [No 1692/96], for vehicles in international traffic complying with the limit values of the Directive. For the purpose of loading and unloading, where technically possible, the use of non-upgraded parts of the secondary road network shall be allowed during the entire transitional period. …’
6

Article 1(28) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OJ 2015 L 341, p. 21), provides: ‘Article 28 [of Regulation No 207/2009] is replaced by the following: “Article 28 Designation and classification of goods and services … 8. Proprietors of EU trade marks applied for before 22 June 2012 which are registered in respect of the entire heading of a Nice class may declare that their intention on the date of filing had been to seek protection in respect of goods or services beyond those covered by the literal meaning of the heading of that class, provided that the goods or services so designated are included in the alphabetical list for that class in the edition of the Nice Classification in force at the date of filing. The declaration shall be filed at the Office by 24 September 2016, and shall indicate, in a clear, precise and specific manner, the goods and services, other than those clearly covered by the literal meaning of the indications of the class heading, originally covered by the proprietor’s intention. The Office shall take appropriate measures to amend the Register accordingly. The possibility to make a declaration in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be without prejudice to the application of Article 15, Article 42(2), Article 51(1)(a), and Article 57(2). EU trade marks for which no declaration is filed within the period referred to in the second subparagraph shall be deemed to extend, as from the expiry of that period, only to goods or services clearly covered by the literal meaning of the indications included in the heading of the relevant class. 9. Where the register is amended, the exclusive rights conferred by the EU trade mark under Article 9 shall not prevent a third party from continuing to use a trade mark in relation to goods or services where and to the extent that the use of the trade mark for those goods or services: (a) commenced before the register was amended; and (b) did not infringe the proprietor’s rights based on the literal meaning of the record of the goods and services in the register at that time. In addition, the amendment of the list of goods or services recorded in the register shall not give the proprietor of the EU trade mark the right to oppose or to apply for a declaration of invalidity of a later trade mark where and to the extent that: (a) the later trade mark was either in use, or an application had been made to register the trade mark, for goods or services before the register was amended; and (b) the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods or services did not infringe, or would not have infringed, the proprietor’s rights based on the literal meaning of the record of the goods and services in the register at that time.’
23

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of Section A of the single article of Ministerial Decision 109088 of 12 December 2011, as amended by Decision 107309 of 20 December 2012 (‘amended Ministerial Decision 109088’), provides: ‘A. I hereby set out the procedure for the recognition of evidence of accreditation as a mediator issued by a training institution based in another country as follows: Evidence of accreditation as a mediator which is issued by a training institution based in another country shall be recognised as equivalent by the Mediator Accreditation Committee in accordance with the following procedure: 1. The persons concerned shall file an application for recognition of their evidence of accreditation as a mediator. … 2. The application form shall be accompanied by the following supporting documentation: … (c) a certificate issued by the training institution, for the attention of the Mediator Accreditation Committee, as provided for in Article 6(1) of Law 3898/2010, which confirms: (aa) the total number of hours’ training; (bb) the matters taught; (cc) the place of training; (dd) the number of participants, (ee) the number and qualifications of the trainers; (ff) the procedure for the examination and assessment of candidates and the arrangements for ensuring the integrity of that procedure. … 5. The Mediator Accreditation Committee shall accept evidence of accreditation as being equivalent provided that it has been issued by a recognised institution based in another country and the person concerned is able to demonstrate that he or she has taken part in at least three mediation procedures as a mediator, assistant mediator or counsel to one of the parties. The Committee may, at its discretion, ask the person concerned to undergo an additional examination, in particular in the case where his or her training was provided in Greece by an institution based in another country. As regards recognition of the equivalence of evidence of accreditation obtained in another country or issued by a recognised training institution based in another country following training provided in Greece, the Mediator Accreditation Committee may accept evidence of accreditation as being equivalent even if the person concerned cannot demonstrate that he or she has taken part in at least three mediation procedures as a mediator, assistant mediator or counsel to one of the parties, provided that it is readily apparent from the information contained in the application as a whole that the applicant engages in further training and regularly practises mediation, and provided that that evidence was obtained by 31 December 2012 at the latest.’
5

Article 5 of that directive, entitled ‘Prohibition of unfair commercial practices’, which is included in Chapter 2 thereof, entitled ‘Unfair commercial practices’, provides: ‘1. Unfair commercial practices shall be prohibited. 2. A commercial practice shall be unfair if: (a) it is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence, and (b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour with regard to the product of the average consumer whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed, or of the average member of the group when a commercial practice is directed to a particular group of consumers. 3. Commercial practices which are likely to materially distort the economic behaviour only of a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to the practice or the underlying product because of their mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity in a way which the trader could reasonably be expected to foresee, shall be assessed from the perspective of the average member of that group. This is without prejudice to the common and legitimate advertising practice of making exaggerated statements or statements which are not meant to be taken literally. 4. In particular, commercial practices shall be unfair which: (a) are misleading as set out in Articles 6 and 7, or (b) are aggressive as set out in Articles 8 and 9. 5. Annex I contains the list of those commercial practices which shall in all circumstances be regarded as unfair. The same single list shall apply in all Member States and may only be modified by revision of this Directive.’
30

As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, as stated in paragraph 23 of the present judgment, the referring court decided to maintain its request for a preliminary ruling in order to obtain further clarification as to the scope of the judgment of 25 July 2018, Teva UK and Others (C‑121/17, EU:C:2018:585), for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings. More specifically, that court is uncertain whether the concept of ‘core inventive advance’ is relevant for the purposes of interpreting Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009. The referring court notes that, in that judgment, the Court ruled without addressing Advocate General Wathelet’s criticism in his Opinion in Teva UK and Others (C‑121/17, EU:C:2018:278), particularly in point 73 of that Opinion, on the use of that concept for the purpose of determining the subject matter of protection conferred by a basic patent. The referring court infers from this that, by not expressly ruling out the application of that concept, for the purposes of assessing whether a combination of active ingredients could be afforded the protection conferred by a basic patent in force, the Court may have implicitly affirmed that concept. The referring court also states that the questions relating to the concept of ‘core inventive advance’ give rise to numerous divergences in the interpretation of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 as between the competent national courts and the authorities.
Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Commission Regulation adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern — Action by an association of undertakings engaged in an activity related to a listed species –Lack of individual concern of the members represented — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1143/2014; Commission Regulation No 2016/1141)

(see paras 35-39)
The concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’, within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering the transaction by which an immovable property which was used for commercial purposes is let with all capital equipment and inventory items necessary for that use, even if the lessee pursues the activity of the lessor under the same name.

(see para. 30, operative part 1)
Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure — Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity

(Arts 19(1) TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see paras 62, 63)
4.

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion — Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 63, 69)
1.

Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany, – by having systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2010 up to and including 2016, first, the annual limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in 26 zones and agglomerations situated in German territory, namely zones DEZBXX0001A (agglomeration of Berlin), DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart), DEZCXX0043S (district of Tübingen), DEZCXX0063S (district of Stuttgart (without agglomeration)), DEZCXX0004A (agglomeration of Freiburg), DEZCXX0041S (district of Karlsruhe (without agglomerations)), DEZCXX0006A (agglomeration of Mannheim/Heidelberg), DEZDXX0001A (agglomeration of Munich), DEZDXX0003A (agglomeration of Nuremberg/Fürth/Erlangen), DEZFXX0005S (Zone III Central and Northern Hesse), DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), DEZFXX0002A (agglomeration II (Kassel)), DEZGLX0001A (agglomeration of Hamburg), DEZJXX0015A (Grevenbroich (Rhineland mining area)), DEZJXX0004A (Cologne), DEZJXX0009A (Düsseldorf), DEZJXX0006A (Essen), DEZJXX0017A (Duisburg, Oberhausen, Mülheim), DEZJXX0005A (Hagen), DEZJXX0008A (Dortmund), DEZJXX0002A (Wuppertal), DEZJXX0011A (Aachen), DEZJXX0016S (urban and rural areas in North Rhine-Westphalia), DEZKXX0006S (Mainz), DEZKXX0007S (Worms/Frankenthal/Ludwigshafen), DEZKXX0004S (Koblenz/Neuwied), and, secondly, the hourly limit value for NO2 in two of those zones, namely agglomerations DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart) and DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe and of Annex XI thereto, and – by not having adopted, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in all those zones, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read alone and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV thereto, and in particular the obligation, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that air quality plans set out appropriate measures, so that the period of exceedance of limit values can be kept as short as possible;
1.

Approximation of laws – Procedures for awarding contracts in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors – Directive 2004/17 – Use of subcontracting by the tenderer to whom the contract was directly awarded – Subcontracting in relation to tasks without technical specificity – Whether permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/17, Arts 37 and 40(3)(c)) (see paras 47-54)
Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, when determining the pension entitlement of a worker who occupied a position as an employed person in that Member State before becoming an EU official and completed, after becoming an EU official, his compulsory military service in that Member State, that worker is not entitled to have his period of military service treated as equivalent to a period of actual work as an employed person — treatment to which he would have been entitled if, at the time he was called up for military service or for at least one year during the three years following the end of his military service, he had been employed in a position covered by the national pension scheme.
13

Paragraph 16b of the UrhG, entitled ‘Resale right’, provides: ‘(1) Paragraph 16(3) shall apply to the resale of an original work of graphic or plastic art subsequent to the first transfer of the work by the author, it being understood that the seller is required to pay the author a royalty proportional to the resale price excluding taxes (royalty on the basis of the resale right), in accordance with the following limits: 4% for the first portion up to [EUR] 50000; 3% for the [EUR] 150000 exceeding the threshold of the first portion, 1% for the [EUR] 150000 exceeding the threshold of the previous portion, 0.5% for the [EUR] 150000 exceeding the threshold of the previous portion, 0.25% for any further amount exceeding the threshold of the previous portion; The total amount of the royalty may not, however, exceed [EUR] 12500. (2) The resale right shall be owed only if the sale price amounts to at least [EUR] 2500 and if an art market professional, such as an auction house, art gallery or other art dealer, participates in the transfer as a seller, buyer or intermediary; these persons incur liability as guarantors and payers, unless they are themselves taxable persons. The right may not be waived in advance. The resale right may also be relied upon by a collective management organisation; furthermore, this right is inalienable. Paragraph 23(1) shall apply mutatis mutandis. (3) “Original works” within the meaning of subparagraph 1 shall mean works which: 1. have been made by the author himself, 2. have been made in limited numbers by the author himself or under his authority and which are, in principle, numbered and signed or authorised in some other appropriate manner by the author; 3. are otherwise regarded as original works. (4) The royalty on the basis of the resale right shall not be owed where the seller has acquired the work from the author less than three years before and where the sale price does not exceed [EUR] 10000.’
27

As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment of 4 June 2009, Pannon GSM (C‑243/08, EU:C:2009:350), the Court held that the system of protection introduced by Directive 93/13 is based on the idea that the consumer is in a weak position vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his bargaining power and his level of knowledge. This leads to the consumer agreeing to terms drawn up in advance by the seller or supplier without being able to influence the content of those terms. The Court has also held that, in view of that position of weakness, Directive 93/13 requires Member States to provide for a mechanism ensuring that every contractual term not individually negotiated may be reviewed in order to determine whether it is unfair (judgment of 26 March 2019, Abanca Corporación Bancaria and Bankia, C‑70/17 and C‑179/17, EU:C:2019:250, paragraph 50). In that context, the objective pursued by Article 6 of that directive would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfairness of a term of the contract, and effective consumer protection may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has the power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 June 2000, Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, C‑240/98 to C‑244/98, EU:C:2000:346, paragraph 26).
12

Article 47 of Regulation No 987/2009, entitled ‘Investigation of claims by the institutions concerned’, states inter alia: ‘A. Contact institution ‘1. The institution to which the claim for benefits is submitted or forwarded in accordance with Article 45(1) or (4) of [Regulation No 987/2009] shall be referred to hereinafter as the “contact institution”. … In addition to investigating the claim for benefits under the legislation which it applies, this institution shall, in its capacity as contact institution, promote the exchange of data, the communication of decisions and the operations necessary for the investigation of the claim by the institutions concerned, and supply the claimant, upon request, with any information relevant to the Community aspects of the investigation and keep him/her informed of its progress. B. Investigation of claims for benefits under type A legislation under Article 44 of [Regulation No 883/2004] … C. Investigation of other claims for benefits 4. In situations other than those referred to in paragraph 2, the contact institution shall, without delay, send claims for benefits and all the documents which it has available and, where appropriate, the relevant documents supplied by the claimant to all the institutions in question so that they can all start the investigation of the claim concurrently. The contact institution shall notify the other institutions of periods of insurance or residence subject to its legislation. It shall also indicate which documents shall be submitted at a later date and supplement the claim as soon as possible. 5. Each of the institutions in question shall notify the contact institution and the other institutions in question, as soon as possible, of the periods of insurance or residence subject to their legislation. 6. Each of the institutions in question shall calculate the amount of benefits in accordance with Article 52 of [Regulation No 883/2004] and shall notify the contact institution and the other institutions concerned of its decision, of the amount of benefits due and of any information required for the purposes of Articles 53 to 55 of [Regulation No 883/2004]. …’