ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
14

Paragraph 29/A(1), (4), (6) and (7) of the Law on road tolls, inserted by Law No LIV of 2014 with effect from 9 November 2014, provides: ‘(1) In the circumstances set out in subparagraphs (2) to (4), applicants who present an application to the body designated to collect the toll (“the toll collector”) in accordance with the provisions of subparagraphs (6) and (7) (“the application”) shall be exempt under the provisions of this law from payment of the fine imposed for unauthorised road use under Paragraph 14(a) of this law, at a time between 1 July 2013 and 31 March 2014. … (4) On the basis of an application that is well founded under subparagraph (7), the applicant shall be exempt from payment of the fine imposed for breach of Paragraph 14(a) where the fine was imposed on a section of a toll road or a road leading to it — within the period of validity of the route ticket and on no more than one occasion at a particular checkpoint for each direction of travel — which is functionally parallel, from the point of view of the road system, to the section in respect of which the vehicle in question had an authorisation to travel at the same period of time, and did not in fact use that authorisation during its period of validity. … (6) In addition to what is provided for in subparagraphs (2) to (4), in order to obtain an exemption from the fine, before making the application, the applicant is required to have paid to the toll collector, in respect of each fine, a service charge in the sum of HUF 12000 [approximately EUR 39], including value added tax, and must show that this payment has been paid at the time that the application is lodged. … (7) The application may be lodged within 60 days following the entry into force of Law No LIV of 2014 amending [the Law on road tolls]. The toll collector, on the basis of the application lodged — where the content of the application complies with the requirements of this law and the information does not differ from the information held in the database of the toll collector — shall issue a certificate stating that the applicant may be exempt from payment of the fine since it satisfies the conditions under subparagraphs (2) and (4). Such a certificate shall not be issued where the data contained in the application does not accord with the information held in the database of the toll collector. The toll collector shall issue the certificate within 120 days following receipt of the application. …’
12

Article 21 of the Dublin III Regulation states: ‘1. Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it may, as quickly as possible and in any event within three months of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 20(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 14 of [the Eurodac Regulation], the request shall be sent within two months of receiving that hit pursuant to Article 15(2) of that Regulation. Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged. 2. The requesting Member State may ask for an urgent reply in cases where the application for international protection was lodged after leave to enter or remain was refused, after an arrest for an unlawful stay or after the service or execution of a removal order. The request shall state the reasons warranting an urgent reply and the period within which a reply is expected. That period shall be at least one week. 3. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the request that charge be taken by another Member State shall be made using a standard form and including proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3) and/or relevant elements from the applicant’s statement, enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take charge requests. ...’
5

Article 13 bis of the Bosdecreet (Decree on woodland) of 13 June 1990, in the version applicable to the facts of the main proceedings, provides: ‘Inheritance tax which would have been due on the amount exempted under Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Code of Taxation is deemed to be granted as a subsidy. The subsidy is deemed to be granted over 30 years at the rate of 1/30 per year, counting from the opening of the succession which is the subject of the exemption. The subsidy is deemed to be granted on the following conditions, which must be satisfied during the period of 30 years mentioned in the first paragraph: (1) the property must continue to maintain its woodland character in accordance with Article 3 of this decree; (2) the property must continue to satisfy the conditions laid down in the second indent of Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Code of Taxation; (3) the management actually carried on must be in accordance with the approved management plan. In the event of non-compliance with those conditions, the landowner or person entitled to the usufruct of the woodland is required to repay the subsidy for the remaining part of the period for which it is deemed to be granted. …’
5

Under Article 10(1) of that directive: ‘By way of derogation from Article 8(3)(i), and without prejudice to the law relating to the protection of industrial and commercial property, the applicant shall not be required to provide the results of pre-clinical tests and of clinical trials if he can demonstrate that the medicinal product is a generic of a reference medicinal product which is or has been authorised under Article 6 for not less than eight years in a Member State or in the Community. A generic medicinal product authorised pursuant to this provision shall not be placed on the market until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorisation of the reference product. The first subparagraph shall also apply if the reference medicinal product was not authorised in the Member State in which the application for the generic medicinal product is submitted. In this case, the applicant shall indicate in the application form the name of the Member State in which the reference medicinal product is or has been authorised. At the request of the competent authority of the Member State in which the application is submitted, the competent authority of the other Member State shall transmit, within a period of one month, a confirmation that the reference medicinal product is or has been authorised together with the full composition of the reference product and if necessary other relevant documentation. …’
8

Article 18 of the Regulation states: ‘1. The Member State responsible under this Regulation shall be obliged to: (a) take charge, under the conditions laid down in Articles 21, 22 and 29, of an applicant who has lodged an application in a different Member State; (b) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 24, 25 and 29, an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document; (c) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 24, 25 and 29, a third-country national or a stateless person who has withdrawn the application under examination and made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document; (d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 24, 25 and 29, a third-country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document. 2. In the cases falling within the scope of paragraph 1(a) and (b), the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection made by the applicant. In the cases falling within the scope of paragraph 1(c), when the Member State responsible had discontinued the examination of an application following its withdrawal by the applicant before a decision on the substance has been taken at first instance, that Member State shall ensure that the applicant is entitled to request that the examination of his or her application be completed or to lodge a new application for international protection … In the cases falling within the scope of paragraph 1(d), where the application has been rejected at first instance only, the Member State responsible shall ensure that the person concerned has or has had the opportunity to seek an effective remedy pursuant to Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU.’
3

Recitals 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 31 and 32 of Directive 2001/29 state: ‘(1) The [EC] Treaty provides for the establishment of an internal market and the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted. Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on copyright and related rights contributes to the achievement of these objectives. … (3) The proposed harmonisation will help to implement the four freedoms of the internal market and relates to compliance with the fundamental principles of law and especially of property, including intellectual property, and freedom of expression and the public interest. … (6) Without harmonisation at [EU] level, legislative activities at national level which have already been initiated in a number of Member States in order to respond to the technological challenges might result in significant differences in protection and thereby in restrictions on the free movement of services and products incorporating, or based on, intellectual property, leading to a refragmentation of the internal market and legislative inconsistency. The impact of such legislative differences and uncertainties will become more significant with the further development of the information society, which has already greatly increased transborder exploitation of intellectual property. … (7) The [EU] legal framework for the protection of copyright and related rights must, therefore, also be adapted and supplemented as far as is necessary for the smooth functioning of the internal market. … [D]ifferences not adversely affecting the functioning of the internal market need not be removed or prevented. … (9) Any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection, since such rights are crucial to intellectual creation. Their protection helps to ensure the maintenance and development of creativity in the interests of authors, performers, producers, consumers, culture, industry and the public at large. Intellectual property has therefore been recognised as an integral part of property. … (31) A fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject matter must be safeguarded. The existing exceptions and limitations to the rights as set out by the Member States have to be reassessed in the light of the new electronic environment. … In order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, such exceptions and limitations should be defined more harmoniously. The degree of their harmonisation should be based on their impact on the smooth functioning of the internal market. (32) This Directive provides for an exhaustive enumeration of exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right and the right of communication to the public. … Member States should arrive at a coherent application of these exceptions and limitations …’
16

Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings (‘the 1984 Act’), entitled ‘Directions in the interests of national security etc.’, provides: ‘(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with a person to whom this section applies, give to that person such directions of a general character as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary in the interests of national security or relations with the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary to do so in the interests of national security or relations with the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, he may, after consultation with a person to whom this section applies, give to that person a direction requiring him (according to the circumstances of the case) to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction. (2A) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under subsection (1) or (2) unless he believes that the conduct required by the direction is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct. (3) A person to whom this section applies shall give effect to any direction given to him by the Secretary of State under this section notwithstanding any other duty imposed on him by or under Part 1 or Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Communications Act 2003 and, in the case of a direction to a provider of a public electronic communications network, notwithstanding that it relates to him in a capacity other than as the provider of such a network. (4) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every direction given under this section unless he is of [the] opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or relations with the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the commercial interests of any person. (5) A person shall not disclose, or be required by virtue of any enactment or otherwise to disclose, anything done by virtue of this section if the Secretary of State has notified him that the Secretary of State is of the opinion that disclosure of that thing is against the interests of national security or relations with the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the commercial interests of some other person. … (8) This section applies to [the Office of Communications (OFCOM)] and to providers of public electronic communications networks.’
Case C‑220/18 PPU

ML

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant –Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for non-execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Detention conditions in the issuing Member State — Scope of the assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authorities — Existence of a legal remedy in the issuing Member State — Assurance given by the authorities of that Member State)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 25 July 2018

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Urgent preliminary ruling procedure—Conditions—Person in custody—Outcome of the dispute liable to have an impact on that custody (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 107) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters—Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States—Surrender to the executing judicial authorities of convicted or suspected persons—Obligation to observe the fundamental rights and principles—Scope—Limits (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters—Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States—Article 15(2—Surrender to the executing judicial authorities of convicted or suspected persons—Consequences of a finding that there is a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 15(2)) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters—Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States—Surrender to the executing judicial authorities of convicted or suspected persons—Obligation to observe the fundamental rights and principles—Detention conditions in the issuing Member State—Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment—Verification by the executing judicial authority—Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 1(3), 5 and 6(1))
Judgment of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission

(Case C‑312/18 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for car battery recycling — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines — Correcting decision adding the value of purchases of the addressees which were not included in the initial decision — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Time limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Purely formal errors irrelevant (Arts 263, sixth para., and 297(2), third para., TFEU) (see paras 25-28)

2. 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 (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 31)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see para. 35)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH and Société de traitements chimiques des métaux (STCM) to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that a child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State, for the purposes of that provision. Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, assuming that they are proven, that is to say, first, the fact that the father’s coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since, and, secondly, the breach of the mother’s or the child’s rights, do not have any bearing in that regard.

In that regard, it is apparent from recital 12 of Regulation No 2201/2003 that that regulation was drawn up with the objective of meeting the best interests of the child, and to that end it favours the criterion of proximity. The EU legislature considered that the court geographically close to the child’s habitual residence is the court best placed to assess the measures to be adopted in the interests of the child.

Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003 gives expression to that objective by establishing a general jurisdiction in relation to parental responsibility in favour of the courts of the Member State in which the child is habitually resident (judgment of 15 February 2017, W and V, C‑499/15, EU:C:2017:118, paragraph 52).

The importance placed by the EU legislature on geographical proximity in order to determine the court which has jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility is also apparent from Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 which bases the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State solely on the fact that the child is present, precisely when the child’s residence could not be qualified as ‘habitual’, for the purposes of Article 8(1) of that regulation, in any Member State and that that jurisdiction may not be determined on the basis of Article 12 of that regulation.

Thus, the Court has held that the recognition of a child’s habitual residence in a given Member State requires at least that the child has been physically present in that Member State (judgment of 15 February 2017, W and V, C‑499/15, EU:C:2017:118, paragraph 61).

It follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 45 to 52 above that physical presence in the Member State in which the child is allegedly integrated is a condition which necessarily must be satisfied before assessing the stability of that presence and that ‘habitual residence’, for the purposes of Regulation No 2201/2003, may not be established in a Member State which the child has never been to. That interpretation is supported by the position occupied by Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 within the jurisdiction rules laid down by that regulation in matters of parental responsibility.

(see paras 48, 49, 51-54, 70, operative part)
Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Determination of the value of sales — Sales carried out in direct or indirect relation to the infringement — Account taken of sales made at the worldwide level in order to reflect the relative importance of each undertaking in the infringement — Respect for the principle of equal treatment — Account taken of the differences between and the circumstances of the undertakings concerned at another stage of the calculation of the fine — Whether permissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 13 and 18)

(see paras 47-59)
1.

Declares that, by failing to consider that the stone aggregate deposited in Biljane Donje (Croatia) is waste, rather than a by-product, and must be treated as waste, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives;
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Restrictions on access to the EU capital market – Restriction of property rights and freedom of enterprise – Breach of principle of proportionality – None

(Council Decision 2014/512/PESC, as amended by Decision 2014/659/PESC; Council Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 960/2014)

(see paras 61, 62, 66, 68, 79-82)