ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
22

In those circumstances, the arbeidshof te Gent (Higher Labour Court, Ghent) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘Is Article 3(1) of Directive [2001/23] to be interpreted as meaning that in the event of a simultaneous transfer of various parts of an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, to various transferees, the rights and obligations arising from the contract of employment, as it existed at the time of transfer of a worker who was employed in each of the parts transferred, are to be transferred to each of the transferees, albeit in proportion to the extent of employment of the worker in question in the part of the undertaking acquired by each of the transferees, or is Article 3(1) to be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned rights and obligations are to be transferred in their entirety to the transferee that acquired the part of the undertaking in which the worker in question was principally employed, or as meaning that, if the provisions of the directive cannot be interpreted in any of the aforementioned ways, there is no transfer to any transferee of the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract of the aforementioned worker, which is also the case if it is not possible to determine separately the extent of the worker’s employment in each of the transferred parts of the undertaking?’
7

Under Article 19 of Directive 2004/39: ‘… 2. All information, including marketing communications, addressed by the investment firm to clients or potential clients shall be fair, clear and not misleading. Marketing communications shall be clearly identifiable as such. 3. Appropriate information shall be provided in a comprehensible form to clients or potential clients about: – the investment firm and its services, – financial instruments and proposed investment strategies; this should include appropriate guidance on and warnings of the risks associated with investments in those instruments or in respect of particular investment strategies, – execution venues, and – costs and associated charges so that they are reasonably able to understand the nature and risks of the investment service and of the specific type of financial instrument that is being offered and, consequently, to take investment decisions on an informed basis. This information may be provided in a standardised format. … 5. Member States shall ensure that investment firms, when providing investment services other than those referred to in paragraph 4, ask the client or potential client to provide information regarding his knowledge and experience in the investment field relevant to the specific type of product or service offered or demanded so as to enable the investment firm to assess whether the investment service or product envisaged is appropriate for the client. In case the investment firm considers, on the basis of the information received under the previous subparagraph, that the product or service is not appropriate to the client or potential client, the investment firm shall warn the client or potential client. This warning may be provided in a standardised format. In cases where the client or potential client elects not to provide the information referred to under the first subparagraph, or where he provides insufficient information regarding his knowledge and experience, the investment firm shall warn the client or potential client that such a decision will not allow the firm to determine whether the service or product envisaged is appropriate for him. This warning may be provided in a standardised format. …’
25

In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Do Article 90 of [the VAT Directive] and the principle of VAT neutrality preclude national legislation (or an administrative practice based on unclear legislation) which denies an undertaking the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of a discount applied to national supplies of goods on the ground that the tax invoice issued by the intra-Community supplier (as representative of an economic group) shows the global discount granted for both [goods which have been the subject of intra-Community supplies] and [goods which have been the subject of domestic supplies, all such goods having been] supplied under the same framework agreement but recorded as purchased from the Member State of reference (from one member of the group, with a different VAT number from that borne by the invoice relating to the discount)? (2) In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, does the principle of proportionality mean that the beneficiary cannot be denied the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of the discount granted globally by the intra-Community supplier in the case where the local supplier (a member of the same group) has ceased its economic activity and can no longer reduce the taxable amount of the supplies by issuing an invoice bearing its own VAT number, for the purpose of reimbursement of the excess VAT collected?’
5

Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1), provides as follows: ‘1. Support may be granted for tangible or intangible investments in processing facilities, winery infrastructure and marketing of wine which improve the overall performance of the enterprise and concern one or more of the following: (a) the production or marketing of products referred to in Annex IV; (b) the development of new products, processes and technologies related to the products referred to in Annex IV. 2. Support under paragraph 1 at its maximum rate shall be limited to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises [(OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36)]. For the territories of the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands, the smaller Aegean islands within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 of 18 September 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands [(OJ 2006 L 265, p. 1)] and the French overseas departments, no size limits shall apply for the maximum rate. For enterprises that are not covered by Article 2(1) of Title I of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC with less than 750 employees or with a turn-over of less than EUR 200 million, the maximum aid intensity shall be halved. Support shall not be granted to enterprises in difficulty within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. 3. The eligible expenditure shall exclude the elements referred to in Article 71(3)(a) to (c) of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 [of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1)]. 4. The following maximum aid rates in relation to the eligible investment costs shall apply to the Community contribution: (a) 50% in regions classified as convergence regions in accordance with [Council] Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 [of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25)]; (b) 40% in regions other than convergence regions; (c) 75% in the outermost regions in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union [(OJ 2006 L 42, p. 1)]; (d) 65% in the smaller Aegean islands within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006. 5. Article 72 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 shall apply mutatis mutandis to support referred to in paragraph 1.’
Point (iii) of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1a) of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which subjects the holders of shares or the natural persons or legal entities referred to in Article 10 or 13 of Directive 2004/109, as amended by Directive 2013/50, to requirements concerning the notification of major holdings which, for the purposes of that subparagraph, constitute requirements more stringent than those laid down by Directive 2004/109, as amended by Directive 2013/50, and which arise from laws, regulations or administrative provisions adopted in relation, inter alia, to takeover bids, without entrusting the power to ensure compliance with those requirements to an authority of that Member State designated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids.
1.

Declares that, by authorising spring hunting of male specimens of woodcocks (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria (Austria), the Republic of Austria failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Decision 2004/258 of the European Central Bank – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the public interest – Confidentiality of the deliberations of decision-making bodies – Refusal of access to decisions of the Governing Council and to the minutes transcribing them – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Statement of reasons limited to raising the exception concerned

(Decision 2004/258 of the European Central Bank, Recital 3 and Art. 4(1)(a); Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art. 10(4))

(see paras 40, 42-46, 53)
Appeal – Grounds – Mistaken 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 – Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see para. 44)
Judicial proceedings – Judgment on appeal binding on the General Court – Conditions – Reference back following an appeal – Issues of law definitively adjudicated upon by the General Court in the context of an appeal – Res judicata – Scope

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 215)

(see paras 24, 25)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law – Operative part well founded for other legal reasons – Rejection

(Art. 256(1), second subpara. TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 49)
13

Paragraph 53a(1) and (3) of the Niederlassungs- und Aufenthaltsgesetz (Law on establishment and residence, BGBl. I, 100/2005), in its version applicable to the case in the main proceedings, provides: ‘(1) Nationals of the [European Economic Area (EEA)] who are entitled to the right of residence under EU law (Paragraphs 51 and 52) shall acquire the right of residence after residing legally for a continuous period of five years in federal territory, irrespective of whether the conditions laid down in Paragraphs 51 and 52 continue to be fulfilled. A document certifying their permanent residence shall be issued without delay upon application, after verification of the duration of residence. … (3) By way of derogation from subparagraph 1, EEA nationals shall, pursuant to Paragraph 51(1)(1), acquire the right of permanent residence before completion of the five-year period if: 1. at the time they stop working, they have reached the statutory retirement age or are workers who stop working to take early retirement, provided that they have been working in federal territory for at least the preceding twelve months and have resided in federal territory continuously for more than three years; 2. they have resided continuously in federal territory for more than two years, and cease to pursue their activity there as a result of permanent incapacity to work whereby the conditions as to length of residence shall not apply if such incapacity is the result of an accident at work or an occupational disease entitling the person concerned to a pension payable in full or in part by an Austrian pension insurance institution, or 3. they were continuously employed and resident in federal territory for threeyears and then work in another Member State of the European Union and retain their place of residence in federal territory, to which they return, as a rule, at least once a week; For the purposes of entitlement to the right referred to in points 1 and 2, periods of employment spent in another Member State of the European Union shall be regarded as having been spent in federal territory. …’
8

According to recital 13 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Directive 93/13 and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64): ‘Member States should remain competent, in accordance with Union law, to apply the provisions of this Directive to areas not falling within its scope. Member States may therefore maintain or introduce national legislation corresponding to the provisions of this Directive, or certain of its provisions, in relation to contracts that fall outside the scope of this Directive. For instance, Member States may decide to extend the application of the rules of this Directive to legal persons or to natural persons who are not consumers within the meaning of this Directive, such as non-governmental organisations, start-ups or small and medium-sized enterprises. …’
7

In accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of Legea nr. 207 privind Codul de procedură fiscală (Law No 207 establishing the Tax Procedure Code) of 20 July 2015 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 547 of 23 July 2015), in the version in force at the material time in the main proceedings (‘the Tax Procedure Code’): ‘1. The tax authority shall be entitled to assess, within the limits of its powers and competences, the relevance of facts of a fiscal nature, using the means of evidence provided for by law, and to adopt a solution based on statutory provisions and on the comprehensive findings relating to all the illuminating circumstances of the case at the time of the adoption of a decision. In carrying out that assessment, the tax authority shall take into account any written opinion addressed by the competent tax authority to the taxpayer concerned in the context of the provision of assistance and guidance to taxpayers and of the solution adopted by the tax authority, in any fiscal administrative act, or by a court of law, in an earlier final decision, in respect of similar facts concerning the same taxpayer. In the event that the tax authority observes discrepancies between the tax position of the taxpayer and the information taken into account in a written opinion or fiscal administrative act concerning the same taxpayer, the tax authority shall be entitled to make findings in accordance with the actual tax position and tax legislation and shall be under an obligation to set out in writing the reasons for which it does not take the earlier opinion into consideration. 2. The tax authority shall carry out its assessment within the bounds of reasonableness and fairness and shall strike a fair balance between the objective pursued and the means used to attain it.’
Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which a trader’s telephone appears on his or her website in such a way as to suggest, to an average consumer, that is to say a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer, that that trader uses that telephone number for the purposes of his or her contacts with consumers, that telephone number must be considered to be ‘available’ within the meaning of that provision. In such a case, Article 6(1)(c) and (h) and (4) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex I(A) thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that a trader who provides a consumer, before the latter is bound by a distance contract or off-premises contract, with the instructions relating to the procedure for the exercise of the right of withdrawal, making use for that purpose of the model instructions set out in Annex I(A), is required to mention the same telephone number in those instructions, in such a way as to enable that consumer to communicate to the trader his or her decision to make use of that right by means of that telephone number.
10

Article 28 of the SatCen Staff Regulations, headed ‘Appeals’, is in Chapter VIII of those regulations, entitled ‘Appeals and Appeals Board’. That article is worded as follows: ‘1. Any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply may submit to the Director a request that he take a decision relating to him in matters covered by these Staff Regulations. The Director shall notify the person concerned of his reasoned decision within two months from the date on which the request was made. If at the end of that period no reply to the request has been received, this shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which a complaint may be lodged in accordance with the following paragraphs. 2. Any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply may submit to the Director a complaint against an act adversely affecting him, either where the Director has taken a decision or where he has failed to adopt a measure prescribed by the Staff Regulations. The complaint must be lodged within three months. … … 5. Having exhausted the possibilities of the first resort (an internal administrative appeal), staff members shall be at liberty to seek a settlement before [SatCen]’s Appeals Board. The composition, operation and specific procedures of that body are given in Annex X. 6. Decisions of the Appeals Board shall be binding on both parties. There shall be no appeal from them. The Appeals Board may: (a) annul, or confirm, the decisions complained of; (b) order [SatCen] incidentally to compensate any material damage sustained by the staff member starting from the day the annulled decision began to have effect; (c) rule further that [SatCen] shall reimburse, within limits to be fixed by the Appeals Board, justified expenses incurred by the claimant, as well as expenses relating to transport and subsistence incurred by witnesses who have been heard. These expenses shall be calculated on the basis of Article 18 and Annex VII of these Staff Regulations.’
7

Article 187 of the VAT Directive provides: ‘1. In the case of capital goods, adjustment shall be spread over five years including that in which the goods were acquired or manufactured. Member States may, however, base the adjustment on a period of five full years starting from the time at which the goods are first used. In the case of immovable property, the period used as a basis for the calculation of the adjustment may be extended to a maximum of 20 years. 2. The annual adjustment shall be made only in respect of one fifth of the VAT charged on the capital goods, or, if the adjustment period has been extended, in respect of the corresponding fraction thereof. The adjustment referred to in the first subparagraph shall be made on the basis of the variations in the deduction entitlement in subsequent years in relation to that for the year in which the goods were acquired, manufactured or, where applicable, used for the first time.’
3

Recitals 1 to 3, 8 and 9 of Directive 2004/35 state: ‘(1) There are currently many contaminated sites in the Community, posing significant health risks, and the loss of biodiversity has dramatically accelerated over the last decades. Failure to act could result in increased site contamination and greater loss of biodiversity in the future. Preventing and remedying, in so far as is possible, environmental damage contributes to implementing the objectives and principles of the Community’s environment policy as set out in the Treaty. Local conditions should be taken into account when deciding how to remedy damage. (2) The prevention and remedying of environmental damage should be implemented through the furtherance of the “polluter pays” principle, as indicated in the Treaty and in line with the principle of sustainable development. The fundamental principle of this Directive should therefore be that an operator whose activity has caused the environmental damage or the imminent threat of such damage is to be held financially liable, in order to induce operators to adopt measures and develop practices to minimise the risks of environmental damage so that their exposure to financial liabilities is reduced. (3) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish a common framework for the prevention and remedying of environmental damage at a reasonable cost to society, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level by reason of the scale of this Directive and its implications in respect of other Community legislation, namely Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds [(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1)], Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [(OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)], and Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy [(OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1)], the Community may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the [EC Treaty]. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. … (8) This Directive should apply, as far as environmental damage is concerned, to occupational activities which present a risk for human health or the environment. Those activities should be identified, in principle, by reference to the relevant Community legislation which provides for regulatory requirements in relation to certain activities or practices considered as posing a potential or actual risk for human health or the environment. (9) This Directive should also apply, as regards damage to protected species and natural habitats, to any occupational activities other than those already directly or indirectly identified by reference to Community legislation as posing an actual or potential risk for human health or the environment. In such cases the operator should only be liable under this Directive whenever he is at fault or negligent.’