ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
12

Article 10 of Regulation No 1307/2013 provides: ‘1. Member States shall decide in which one of the following cases not to grant direct payments to a farmer: (a) where the total amount of direct payments claimed or due to be granted before the application of Article 63 of Regulation … No 1306/2013 in a given calendar year is less than EUR 100; (b) where the eligible area of the holding for which direct payments are claimed or due to be granted before the application of Article 63 of Regulation … No 1306/2013 is less than one hectare. 2. In order to take account of the structure of their agricultural economies, Member States may adjust the thresholds set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 within the limits set out in Annex IV. 3. Where a Member State has decided to apply an area threshold pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 1, it shall nevertheless apply point (a) of that paragraph to those farmers receiving the animal-related coupled support referred to in Title IV who hold fewer hectares than the area threshold. 4. The Member States concerned may decide not to apply paragraph 1 to the outermost regions and to the smaller Aegean Islands. 5. In Bulgaria and Romania, for the year 2015, the amount claimed or due to be granted as referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of the relevant amount set out in point A of Annex V. In Croatia, for the years 2015-2021, the amount claimed or due to be granted as referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of the amount set out in point A of Annex VI.’
33

However, in the present case, it is apparent from the file before the Court that, although the dispute in the main proceedings is linked to the classification given to a semi-trailer when it is coupled to a road tractor, that classification is not related to the insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103, as transposed into Spanish law. Furthermore, it is common ground that each of the two vehicles at issue in the main proceedings had been covered by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of their use. On the other hand, it is also apparent from the court file that the effect of that classification, which stems from the interpretation of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, is that the owner or holder of a semi-trailer damaged in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings will not have that damage compensated by the civil liability insurer in respect of the use of the vehicle which was hauling it when the accident occurred. Accordingly, that interpretation, subject to the checks to be carried out by the referring court, concerns the extent of the right of injured parties to obtain compensation on the basis of the civil liability of the insured party.
16

Article 3 of that directive, headed ‘Money laundering offences’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following conduct, when committed intentionally, is punishable as a criminal offence: (a) the conversion or transfer of property, knowing that such property is derived from criminal activity, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of assisting any person who is involved in the commission of such an activity to evade the legal consequences of that person’s action; (b) the concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect to, or ownership of, property, knowing that such property is derived from criminal activity; (c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt, that such property was derived from criminal activity. 2. Member States may take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred to in paragraph 1 is punishable as a criminal offence where the offender suspected or ought to have known that the property was derived from criminal activity. … 5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 is punishable as a criminal offence when committed by persons who committed, or were involved in, the criminal activity from which the property was derived.’
6

Article 26 ECT, entitled ‘Settlement of disputes between an investor and a Contracting Party’, provides: ‘1. Disputes between a Contracting Party and an investor of another Contracting Party relating to an investment of the latter in the area of the former, which concern an alleged breach of an obligation of the former under Part III shall, if possible, be settled amicably. 2. If such disputes can not be settled according to the provisions of paragraph 1 within a period of three months from the date on which either party to the dispute requested amicable settlement, the investor party to the dispute may choose to submit it for resolution: (a) to the courts or administrative tribunals of the Contracting Party to the dispute; [or] (b) in accordance with any applicable, previously agreed dispute settlement procedure; or (c) in accordance with the following paragraphs of this Article. 3. (a) Subject only to subparagraphs (b) and (c), each Contracting Party hereby gives its unconditional consent to the submission of a dispute to international arbitration or conciliation in accordance with the provisions of this Article. … … 4. In the event that an investor chooses to submit the dispute for resolution under subparagraph (2)(c), the investor shall further provide its consent in writing for the dispute to be submitted to: (a) (i) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, established pursuant to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States opened for signature at Washington, 18 March 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Icsid Convention”), if the Contracting Party of the investor and the Contracting Party party to the dispute are both parties to the Icsid Convention; or (ii) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, established pursuant to the Convention referred to in subparagraph (a)(i), under the rules governing the Additional Facility for the Administration of Proceedings by the Secretariat of the Centre … if the Contracting Party of the investor or the Contracting Party to the dispute, but not both, is a party to the Icsid Convention; (b) a sole arbitrator or ad hoc arbitration tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (hereinafter referred to as “Uncitral”); or (c) an arbitral proceeding under the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm [(Sweden)] Chamber of Commerce. … 6. A tribunal established pursuant to paragraph 4 shall decide the issues in dispute in accordance with this Treaty and applicable rules and principles of international law. … 8. The awards of arbitration, which may include an award of interest, shall be final and binding upon the parties to the dispute. …’
59

As is apparent from the case-law of the Court, recalled in paragraph 49 of this judgment, the Court has already held – with respect to taking into account, for the purposes of the application of the aggravating factor of repeated infringement as regards a parent company, an infringement committed by the subsidiary of that parent company – that it is not required that the latter has been the subject of earlier proceedings giving rise to a statement of objections and a decision, on condition that the subsidiary whose conduct gave rise to the infringement already formed, together with the parent company in question, at the time of the first infringement, a single undertaking within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. Thus, in so far as a decision finding that there was an infringement committed by an undertaking has been addressed to one of the companies that already constituted that undertaking at the time, such that that company, and, through it, that undertaking, were given the opportunity of contesting the reality of that infringement, the rights of the defence of the other companies which constituted that undertaking are not breached by the taking into account of the existence of that infringement in the context of later proceedings for compensation brought by a person who suffered harm as a result of the conduct in question that amounted to an infringement, in particular since such an action is not capable of leading to the imposition of a penalty, such as a fine, on those other companies.
195

In the present case, it is apparent from the information provided in the requests for a preliminary ruling in Cases C‑357/19, C‑811/19 and C‑840/19, as summarised in paragraphs 60, 95 and 107 of this judgment, that, by its Decision No 417/2019, delivered on 3 July 2019 on referral from the President of the Chamber of Deputies, the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) ordered that all cases on which the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (High Court of Cassation and Justice) had ruled at first instance prior to 23 January 2019 and in which the decisions given by that court were not final on the date of that decision be re-examined by panels specialised in anti-corruption matters and established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Law No 78/2000, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court). According to that same information, the findings made in Decision No 417/2019 require the re-examination at first instance, inter alia, of all cases which, as at 23 January 2019, were pending on appeal or in which the judgment on appeal was, as at that same date, still open to an extraordinary appeal. It is further apparent from the information that, in its Decision No 685/2018, which was delivered on 7 November 2018 on referral from the Prime Minister, the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) found that the selection by the drawing of lots of only four of the five members of the five-judge panels of the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (High Court of Cassation and Justice) ruling on appeal was contrary to Article 32 of Law No 304/2004, as amended, and clarified that, with effect from the date of its publication, that decision was applicable, inter alia, to cases pending before the courts and to cases in which a ruling had been given, in so far as the individuals concerned were still within the period for the exercise of the appropriate extraordinary appeals, and that the case-law established in that decision requires that all those cases be subject to re-examination on appeal by a panel, all the members of which are selected by the drawing of lots.
14

Ley 1/2013, de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social (Law 1/2013 on measures to strengthen the protection of mortgage debtors, debt restructuring and social rent) of 14 May 2013 (BOE No 116 of 15 May 2013, p. 36373; ‘Law 1/2013’), which is one of the laws which amended the LEC, introduced, among the grounds for objection, the possibility of relying on the unfairness of contractual terms, both in the general enforcement procedure and in the mortgage enforcement procedure. The fourth transitional provision of Law 1/2013 states: ‘1. The amendments to [the LEC] introduced by the present Law shall apply to enforcement proceedings already in progress at the date of entry into force of the present Law, only in respect of those enforcement measures still to be taken. 2. In any event, in enforcement proceedings in progress on the date of the entry into force of the present Law, in which the 10-day period for lodging an objection to enforcement laid down by Article 556(1) of [the LEC] has expired, the parties against whom enforcement is sought shall have a period of one month within which to submit an extraordinary application objecting to enforcement based on the existence of new grounds for objection, set out in Article 557(1)(7) and Article 695(1)(4) of [the LEC]. In accordance with the provisions of Article 558 et seq. and Article 695 [of the LEC], the time limit of one month shall start to run from the day following the entry into force of the present Law, and the effect of the lodging by the parties of the application objecting to enforcement shall be to suspend proceedings until the application has been adjudicated upon. The present transitional provision shall be applicable to all enforcement proceedings that have not led to the buyer’s taking possession of the property in accordance with the provisions of Article 675 of [the LEC]. 3. Likewise, in enforcement proceedings in progress in which, on the entry into force of the present Law, the 10-day period for objecting to enforcement laid down by Article 556(1) of [of the LEC] has already started to run, the parties against whom enforcement is sought shall enjoy the same period of one month provided for in the previous paragraph in order to submit an application on the basis of the existence of any of the grounds for objecting to enforcement provided for under Articles 557 and 695 of [the LEC]. 4. Publication of the present provision shall be considered full and valid notification for the purposes of notifying and calculating the periods provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present article, without its being necessary in any circumstances expressly to make an order in that respect. …’
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 – Commission v Italy (Droits d’accise – Carburant des bateaux de plaisance)

(Case C‑341/20) ( 1 )

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 258 TFEU – Directive 2003/96/EC – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Article 14(1)(c) – Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purposes of navigation within EU waters – Exemption granted only to private pleasure craft which are the subject of a charter agreement)

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Exemption of supplied energy products intended to be used as fuel for the purposes of navigation within EU waters – National legislation granting the exemption only to private pleasure craft which are the subject of a charter agreement irrespective of their actual use – Not permissible

(Council Directive 2003/96, Art. 14(1)(c))

(see paras 29, 34-36, 40-45, operative part 1)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in granting the benefit of exemption from excise duty to fuels used by private pleasure craft only in cases where those vessels are the subject of a charter agreement, regardless of the manner in which the vessels are in fact used, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Duty to recover the aid granted – Reference period – Period laid down either in the decision which has not been implemented or subsequently by the Commission

(Arts 108(2), second subpara., and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3))

(see paras 33-39)
9

Recitals 2, 38 and 39 of Regulation No 1224/2009 are worded as follows: ‘(2) Given that the success of the common fisheries policy involves implementing an effective system of control, the measures provided for in this Regulation seek to establish a Community system for control, inspection, and enforcement with a global and integrated approach in accordance with the principle of proportionality, so as to ensure compliance with all the rules of the common fisheries policy in order to provide for the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources by covering all aspects of this policy. … (38) Nationals of Member States should be deterred from committing infringements of the rules of the common fisheries policy. Since action taken following infringements of those rules differs widely from one Member State to another, thereby causing discrimination and unfair competition rules for fishermen and given that the absence of dissuasive, proportionate and effective sanctions in certain Member States reduces the effectiveness of controls, it is appropriate to introduce administrative sanctions in combination with a point system for serious infringements to provide a real deterrent. (39) The persistence of a high number of serious infringements of the rules of the common fisheries policy within Community waters or by Community operators is to a large extent attributable to the non-deterrent level of sanctions for serious infringements of those rules laid down in national legislation. That weakness is compounded by the wide discrepancy in the levels of sanctions between Member States, which encourages illegal operators to operate in waters or within the territory of the Member States where the sanctions are lowest. It is therefore appropriate to complement the maximum levels of sanctions for serious infringements of the rules of the common fisheries policy as laid down in Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 with dissuasive sanctions, taking into account the nature of the damage, value of the fishery products obtained by committing the serious infringement, the economic situation of the offender and any repetition of an infringement. Immediate enforcement measures and complementary measures should also be laid down.’
Appeals – Grounds – Breach of the duty to answer the pleas in the law and claims of the parties – Incorrect assessment by the General Court of the meaning of a plea submitted at first instance – Appeal well founded

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61)

(see paras 60, 61)
9

Article 49 of Regulation No 1151/2012, entitled ‘Application for registration of names’, provides, in paragraphs 2 to 4: ‘2. Where the application under the scheme set out in Title II relates to a geographical area in a Member State, or where an application under the scheme set out in Title III is prepared by a group established in a Member State, the application shall be addressed to the authorities of that Member State. The Member State shall scrutinise the application by appropriate means in order to check that it is justified and meets the conditions of the respective scheme. 3. As part of the scrutiny referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article, the Member State shall initiate a national opposition procedure that ensures adequate publication of the application and that provides for a reasonable period within which any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established or resident on its territory may lodge an opposition to the application. The Member State shall examine the admissibility of oppositions received under the scheme set out in Title II in the light of the criteria referred to in Article 10(1), or the admissibility of oppositions received under the scheme set out in Title III in the light of the criteria referred to in Article 21(1). 4. If, after assessment of any opposition received, the Member State considers that the requirements of this Regulation are met, it may take a favourable decision and lodge an application dossier with the Commission. It shall in such case inform the Commission of admissible oppositions received from a natural or legal person that have legally marketed the products in question, using the names concerned continuously for at least five years preceding the date of the publication referred to in paragraph 3. The Member State shall ensure that its favourable decision is made public and that any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest has an opportunity to appeal. …’
3

The second to fourth, sixth and seventh recitals of Directive 85/374 state: ‘Whereas liability without fault on the part of the producer is the sole means of adequately solving the problem, peculiar to our age of increasing technicality, of a fair apportionment of the risks inherent in modern technological production; Whereas [liability] without fault should apply only to movables which have been industrially produced; whereas, as a result, it is appropriate to exclude liability for agricultural products and game, except where they have undergone a processing of an industrial nature which could cause a defect in these products; whereas the liability provided for in this Directive should also apply to movables which are used in the construction of immovables or are installed in immovables; Whereas protection of the consumer requires that all producers involved in the production process should be made liable, in so far as their finished product, component part or any raw material supplied by them was defective; … … Whereas, to protect the physical well-being and property of the consumer, the defectiveness of the product should be determined by reference not to its fitness for use but to the lack of the safety which the public at large is entitled to expect; whereas the safety is assessed by excluding any misuse of the product not reasonable under the circumstances; Whereas a fair apportionment of risk between the injured person and the producer implies that the producer should be able to free himself from liability if he furnishes proof as to the existence of certain exonerating circumstances’.
6

Headed ‘Liability in the event of abuse’, Article 177 of the Zakon za danaka varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax) (DV No 63 of 4 August 2006), in the version applicable at the material time (‘the Law on VAT’), states: ‘(1) A registered person who is the recipient of a taxable supply shall be liable for unpaid tax due from another registered person where he has exercised the right to deduct input tax directly or indirectly connected with the tax due but not paid. (2) Liability under paragraph 1 shall be incurred where the registered person knew or should have known that the tax would not be paid, and this is proved by the investigating authority in accordance with Articles 117 to 120 of the Danachno – osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Tax and Social Security Procedure Code). (3) Knowledge shall be imputed to a person for the purposes of paragraph 2 where both of the following conditions are satisfied: 1. the tax due, within the meaning of paragraph 1, for a particular tax period has in fact not been paid by any upstream supplier in respect of a taxable supply of the same goods or services, whether or not in the same, a changed or a processed form; 2. the taxable supply is fictitious, circumvents legislation or is made at a price that differs significantly from the market price. (4) Liability under paragraph 1 shall not be dependent on obtaining a specific advantage on account of the non-payment of the tax due. (5) In the circumstances envisaged in paragraphs 2 and 3, the upstream supplier of the taxable person who owes the unpaid tax shall also be liable. (6) In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, liability shall be enforced against the taxable person who is the direct recipient of the supply in respect of which the tax due has not been paid, and, where recovery fails, liability may be enforced against any downstream recipient in the chain of supply. (7) Paragraph 6 shall also apply mutatis mutandis to upstream suppliers.’