ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
13

Under Article 103 of Law XL of 2008 on the Supply of Natural Gas (‘the Law on the supply of natural gas’): ‘… 4. Producers and holders of authorisations under this Law may not pass on to their contractual customers the special income tax or the tax on public utility network services (together, “the special taxes”) to which they are subject under Law LXVII of 2008 on Competitiveness in Urban Heating and Law CLXVIII of 2012 on the Tax on Public Utility Network Services (together, “the laws on the special taxes”). Accordingly, the special taxes may not be directly or indirectly integrated into the price of the goods or services supplied by producers or holders of such authorisations, and may not be separately invoiced. The tax burden must be borne by the taxpayers designated as such by the laws on the special taxes. 4a. In managing their invoicing, producers and holders of authorisations under this Law may not pass on to their contractual customers the costs relating to the tax on financial transactions (“transaction costs”) to which they are subject under Law CXVI of 2012 on a Tax on Financial Transactions. Accordingly, transaction costs may not be directly or indirectly integrated into the price of the goods or services supplied by producers or holders of such authorisations, and may not be separately invoiced, but must be borne by the producers and holders themselves. …’
1.

By not adopting the necessary measures to guarantee the organisational independence of the investigative body with regard to management of the railway infrastructure controlled by the Minister of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications as well as the independence of that body with regard to that management as regards access to the resources necessary for the performance of its tasks, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive);
Appeal – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the interpretation of a contractual term – Not included

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169)

(see paras 48, 110, 118)
Appeal – Interest in bringing proceedings – Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it – Appeal brought by an institution seeking to call in question a decision of the General Court concerning civil service matters – Decision of the Court such as to allow the institution to address the situation of an official – Interest in bringing proceedings retained

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1))

(see paras 18, 19)
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time limit, all the measures necessary to recover from Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1385 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 (C 24/10) (ex NN 37/10, ex CP 19/09) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas, by failing to demonstrate that all outstanding payments of that aid have been cancelled and by failing to notify the European Commission, within the prescribed time limit, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3 and 4 of that decision;
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime – Rights of the defence – Notification of inculpatory evidence – Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures – No new grounds – Inculpatory evidence identical to the evidence previously admitted in the initial decision – Infringement of the right to be heard – Absence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2016/850, (CFSP) 2017/917 and (CFSP) 2018/778)

(see paras 45-49)
19

In those circumstances, the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 2(m) of the [Framework Directive] to be interpreted as meaning that the “provision of an electronic communications network” does not cover activities of television rebroadcasting over satellite networks owned by third parties, such as those carried out by the applicant [in the main proceedings]? (2) Is Article 31(1) of the [Universal Service Directive] to be interpreted as precluding Member States from imposing a “must carry” obligation (to broadcast a television channel over satellite networks owned by third parties and to provide access for end users to that broadcast) on economic operators, such as the applicant [in the main proceedings], which (1) broadcast a television channel protected by a conditional access system over satellite networks owned by third parties, to that end receiving signals of television programmes (channels) broadcast at that time, converting them, encrypting them and transmitting them to an artificial earth satellite from which they are uninterruptedly transmitted back to earth, and (2) offer television channel packages to customers, to that end providing access to that protected television broadcast (or part thereof) by conditional access devices in return for remuneration? (3) Is Article 31(1) of the [Universal Service Directive] to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that provision, a significant number of end users are not considered to use electronic communications networks (in the present case, a satellite broadcasting network) as their principal source (means) to receive television broadcasts where those networks are used as that principal source (means) by only approximately 6% of all end users (in the present case, households)? (4) When assessing whether application of Article 31(1) of the [Universal Service Directive] is justified, is regard to be had to the internet users who may, free of charge, view the television programmes in question (or part thereof) live online? (5) Is Article 56 [TFEU] to be interpreted as precluding Member States from imposing a mandatory obligation on economic operators, such as the applicant [in the main proceedings], to rebroadcast a television channel over electronic communications networks free of charge where the broadcaster for whose benefit that obligation is laid down is fully capable of broadcasting those television channels itself over the same network with its own funds? (6) Is Article 56 [TFEU] to be interpreted as precluding Member States from imposing a mandatory obligation on economic operators, such as the applicant [in the main proceedings], to rebroadcast a television channel over electronic communications networks free of charge where that obligation would cover only approximately 6% of all households and those households have the possibility of viewing that television channel by means of the terrestrial broadcasting network or the internet?’
Acts of the institutions – Validity – Examination of secondary law in the light of provisions of the same rank – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulations 2019/1241, Art. 3(1) and Annexe V, Part D, and No 1380/2013, Arts 2, 3(c), (h) and (i), and 6(2))

(see paras 44, 70)
5

Article 8 of that regulation, entitled ‘Transition’, provides: ‘1. Public service contracts shall be awarded in accordance with the rules laid down in this regulation. However, service contracts or public service contracts as defined in Directive [2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1)] or Directive [2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)] for public passenger transport services by bus or tram shall be awarded in accordance with the procedures provided for under those directives where such contracts do not take the form of service concessions contracts as defined in those directives. Where contracts are to be awarded in accordance with Directives [2004/17] or [2004/18], the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of this article shall not apply. 2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the award of public service contracts [for transport] by rail and by road shall comply with Article 5 as from 3 December 2019. During this transitional period Member States shall take measures to gradually comply with Article 5 in order to avoid serious structural problems in particular relating to transport capacity. Within six months after the first half of the transitional period, Member States shall provide the Commission with a progress report, highlighting the implementation of any gradual award of public service contracts in line with Article 5. On the basis of the Member States’ progress reports, the Commission may propose appropriate measures addressed to Member States. 3. In the application of paragraph 2, no account shall be taken of public service contracts awarded in accordance with [EU] and national law: (a) before 26 July 2000 on the basis of a fair competitive tendering procedure; (b) before 26 July 2000 on the basis of a procedure other than a fair competitive tendering procedure; (c) as from 26 July 2000 and before 3 December 2009 on the basis of a fair competitive tendering procedure; (d) as from 26 July 2000 and before 3 December 2009 on the basis of a procedure other than a fair competitive tendering procedure. The contracts referred to in (a) may continue until they expire. The contracts referred to in (b) and (c) may continue until they expire, but for no longer than 30 years. The contracts referred to in (d) may continue until they expire, provided they are of limited duration comparable to the durations specified in Article 4. Public service contracts may continue until they expire where their termination would entail undue legal or economic consequences and provided that the Commission has given its approval. …’
15

In accordance with Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90), the Commission, at the end of the procedure, sent its final position to the Lithuanian authorities by letter of 9 October 2012. In that letter, after quoting the conciliation body’s opinion and its conclusions in its final report of 27 January 2012, the Commission maintained its position regarding the interpretation of the concept of ‘carrying on a commercial farming activity’ by a farmer before being eligible for the early retirement measure. More specifically, after taking note of the definition of semi-subsistence holdings in Lithuania established under the‘semi-subsistence farming’ measure, the Commission concluded that a commercial farming activity defined ex post by the Republic of Lithuania could lead to a situation in which such farming activities could include agricultural holdings not meeting the minimum conditions to be regarded as semi-subsistence holdings. In that regard, the Commission cited the example of an agricultural holding with two cows which was regarded by the Lithuanian authorities as a commercial farming activity, even though such a holding did not meet the minimum conditions to be regarded as a semi-subsistence holding. The Commission inferred from the above that the ex post verifications carried out by the Lithuanian authorities were not adequate to demonstrate that the financial risk was lower than the proposed financial correction. The Commission therefore concluded that, since the Lithuanian authorities had not fully transposed the requirements of EU legislation, a flat-rate financial correction should be applied.
10

Article 34 of Regulation No 165/2014 provides: ‘1. Drivers shall use the record sheets or driver cards every day on which they are driving, starting from the moment they take over the vehicle. The record sheet or driver card shall not be withdrawn before the end of the daily working period unless its withdrawal is otherwise authorised. No record sheet or driver card may be used to cover a period longer than that for which it is intended. … 3. When, as a result of being away from the vehicle, a driver is unable to use the tachograph fitted to the vehicle, the periods of time referred to in points (ii), (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 5(b) shall: … (b) if the vehicle is fitted with a digital tachograph, be entered onto the driver card using the manual entry facility provided for in the tachograph. Member States shall not impose on drivers a requirement to present forms attesting to their activities while away from the vehicle. … 5. Drivers shall: … (b) operate the switch mechanisms enabling the following periods of time to be recorded separately and distinctly: (i) under the sign : driving time, (ii) under the sign : ‘other work’, which means any activity other than driving, as defined in point (a) of Article 3 of Directive 2002/15/EC, and also any work for the same or another employer within or outside of the transport sector; (iii) under the sign : ‘availability’, as defined in point (b) of Article 3 of Directive 2002/15/EC, (iv) under the sign : breaks or rest. …’
48

In its reply, and with regard to ‘judicious use’, the Commission specifies, first, that the interpretation advocated by the Republic of Finland contravenes the Court’s case-law arising from its judgments of 8 June 2006, WWF Italia and Others (C‑60/05, EU:C:2006:378, paragraph 32), and of 10 September 2009, Commission v Malta (C‑76/08, EU:C:2009:535, paragraph 59), according to which ‘derogations under Article 9 of the [Birds] Directive may be granted only if it is ensured that the population of the species concerned is maintained at a satisfactory level. If that condition is not fulfilled, hunting of birds cannot, in any event, be considered [to be] judicious’. Secondly, the Commission insists on the fact that the derogation system set out in Article 9(1)(c) of the Birds Directive is more stringent than that in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive. By specifically limiting Article 9(1)(c) of the Birds Directive to cases of ‘judicious use’, the EU legislature intended to submit that derogation provision to a stricter requirement, which limits derogations to cases of bird populations at a satisfactory level. Thirdly, declining population trends of a given species are obviously a relevant factor for determining whether the population level is satisfactory or not. Moreover, to the extent that a Member State does not ensure that the population in question is maintained at a ‘satisfactory level’, spring hunting cannot constitute ‘judicious use’, irrespective of whether or not hunting is the primary cause of decline in that population.
10

Article 9 of that decision provides: ‘1. For incumbent installations, Member States shall determine historical activity levels of each installation for the baseline period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008, or, where they are higher, for the baseline period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010, on the basis of the data collected under Article 7. 2. The product-related historical activity level shall, for each product for which a product benchmark has been determined as referred to in Annex I, refer to the median annual historical production of this product in the installation concerned during the baseline period. 3. The heat-related historical activity level shall refer to the median annual historical import from an installation covered by the Union scheme, production, or both, during the baseline period, of measurable heat consumed within the installation’s boundaries for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, or exported to installations or other entity not covered by the Union scheme with the exception of the export for the production of electricity expressed as terajoule per year. 4. The fuel-related historical activity level shall refer to the median annual historical consumption of fuels used for the production of non-measurable heat consumed for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, including safety flaring, during the baseline period expressed as terajoule per year. 5. For process emissions, which occurred in relation with the production of products in the installation concerned during the baseline period referred to in paragraph 1, the process-related historical activity level shall refer to the median annual historical process emissions expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. … 9. Where an incumbent installation has had a significant capacity extension or a significant reduction of capacity between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2011, the historical activity levels of the installation concerned shall be the sum of the median values determined in accordance with paragraph 1 without the significant capacity change and the historical activity levels of the added or reduced capacity. The historical activity levels of the added or reduced capacity shall be the difference between the initial installed capacities of each sub-installation having had a significant capacity change determined in accordance with Article 7(3) until the start of changed operation and the installed capacity after the significant capacity change determined in accordance with Article 7(4) multiplied by the average historical capacity utilisation of the installation concerned of the years prior to the start of changed operation.’
4

Recitals 1, 2, 5, 7, 47 and 48 of Directive 2013/11 state: ‘(1) Article 169(1) and point (a) of Article 169(2) [TFEU] provide that the Union is to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection by the measures it adopts pursuant to Article 114 TFEU. Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that Union policies are to ensure a high level of consumer protection. (2) … The internal market should provide consumers with added value in the form of better quality, greater variety, reasonable prices and high safety standards for goods and services, which should promote a high level of consumer protection. … (5) Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers a simple, fast and low-cost out-of-court solution to disputes between consumers and traders. However, ADR is not yet sufficiently and consistently developed across the Union. … Consumers and traders are still not aware of the existing out-of-court redress mechanisms, with only a small percentage of citizens knowing how to file a complaint with an ADR entity. … … (7) In order for consumers to exploit fully the potential of the internal market, … consumers and traders should be aware of the existence of such procedures. … … (47) When a dispute arises it is necessary that consumers are able to identify quickly which ADR entities are competent to deal with their complaint and to know whether or not the trader concerned will participate in proceedings submitted to an ADR entity. Traders who commit to use ADR entities to resolve disputes with consumers should inform consumers of the address and website of the ADR entity or entities by which they are covered. That information should be provided in a clear, comprehensible and easily accessible way on the trader’s website, where one exists, and if applicable in the general terms and conditions of sales or service contracts between the trader and the consumer. Traders should have the possibility of including on their websites, and in the terms and conditions of the relevant contracts, any additional information on their internal complaint handling procedures or on any other ways of directly contacting them with a view to settling disputes with consumers without referring them to an ADR entity. Where a dispute cannot be settled directly, the trader should provide the consumer, on paper or another durable medium, with the information on relevant ADR entities and specify if he will make use of them. (48) The obligation on traders to inform consumers about the ADR entities by which those traders are covered should be without prejudice to provisions on consumer information on out-of-court redress procedures contained in other Union legal acts, which should apply in addition to the relevant information obligation provided for in this Directive.’
7

Article 57, which forms part of that title, is worded as follows: ‘1. Where an offender is a foreign national and commits offences which may be classified as very serious or serious, within the meaning of Article 53(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of this law, having regard to the principle of proportionality, it is possible to order removal from Spanish territory, instead of a fine, following the appropriate administrative procedure and by means of a reasoned decision which includes an assessment of the facts which constitute the offence. 2. Likewise, the foreign national’s conviction, in Spain or abroad, of wilful misconduct constituting[, in Spain,] a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year shall constitute a legal basis for expulsion, after the relevant procedure has been brought to a close, unless the conviction is spent. … 5. Unless the offence committed is that laid down in Article 54(1)(a), or consists in the repetition, within a period of one year, of an offence of the same nature punishable by expulsion, the sanction of expulsion may not be imposed on foreign nationals who are in the following situations: … (b) long-term residents. Before a decision is taken to expel a long-term resident, consideration should be given to the length of time they have resided in Spain and the links created [with Spain], their age, the consequences for the person concerned and the members of their family, and the links with the country to which they are to be removed. …’