ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7

Article 5 of that regulation, headed ‘Cancellation’, provides: ‘1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall: (a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and (b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and (c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless: (i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or (ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart No more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival; or (iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival. 2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport. 3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. 4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.’
11

Article 3(2) and (4) to (6) of that directive states the following: ‘2. Member States may not, for reasons falling within the coordinated field, restrict the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State. … 4. Member States may take measures to derogate from paragraph 2 in respect of a given information society service if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the measures shall be: (i) necessary for one of the following reasons: – public policy, in particular the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, including the protection of minors and the fight against any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality, and violations of human dignity concerning individual persons, – the protection of public health, – public security, including the safeguarding of national security and defence, – the protection of consumers, including investors; (ii) taken against a given information society service which prejudices the objectives referred to in point (i) or which presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to those objectives; (iii) proportionate to those objectives; (b) before taking the measures in question and without prejudice to court proceedings, including preliminary proceedings and acts carried out in the framework of a criminal investigation, the Member State has: – asked the Member State referred to in paragraph 1 to take measures and the latter did not take such measures, or they were inadequate, – notified the Commission and the Member State referred to in paragraph 1 of its intention to take such measures. 5. Member States may, in the case of urgency, derogate from the conditions stipulated in paragraph 4(b). Where this is the case, the measures shall be notified in the shortest possible time to the Commission and to the Member State referred to in paragraph 1, indicating the reasons for which the Member State considers that there is urgency. 6. Without prejudice to the Member State’s possibility of proceeding with the measures in question, the Commission shall examine the compatibility of the notified measures with Community law in the shortest possible time; where it comes to the conclusion that the measure is incompatible with Community law, the Commission shall ask the Member State in question to refrain from taking any proposed measures or urgently to put an end to the measures in question.’
7

Article 6 of that code, entitled ‘Entry conditions for third-country nationals’, provides: ‘1. For intended stays on the territory of the Member States of a duration of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period, which entails considering the 180-day period preceding each day of stay, the entry conditions for third-country nationals shall be the following: (a) they are in possession of a valid travel document entitling the holder to cross the border … … (b) they are in possession of a valid visa, if required pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 [of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1)], except where they hold a valid residence permit or a valid long-stay visa. … 2. For the purposes of implementing paragraph 1, the date of entry shall be considered as the first day of stay on the territory of the Member States and the date of exit shall be considered as the last day of stay on the territory of the Member States. Periods of stay authorised under a residence permit or a long-stay visa shall not be taken into account in the calculation of the duration of stay on the territory of the Member States. … 5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1: … (b) third-country nationals who fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, except for that laid down in point (b), and who present themselves at the border may be authorised to enter the territory of the Member States, if a visa is issued at the border in accordance with Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1)]. …’
8

Article 6 of Regulation No 664/2014, entitled ‘Amendments to a product specification’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof: ‘1. The application for an amendment to a product specification as referred to in Article 53(1) of Regulation [No 1151/2012] which is not minor shall contain an exhaustive description and the specific reasons for each amendment. The description shall compare in detail, for each amendment, the original product specification and, where relevant, the original single document with the amended version proposed. That application shall be self-sufficient. It shall contain all amendments to the product specification and, where relevant, to the single document for which approval is sought. … 2. Applications for a minor amendment to a product specification concerning protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications shall be submitted to the authorities of the Member State the geographical area of the designation or indication relates to. … If the Member State considers that the requirements of Regulation [No 1151/2012] and of the provisions adopted pursuant thereto are met, it may lodge a minor amendment application dossier with the Commission. … The application for a minor amendment shall only propose minor amendments in the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation [No 1151/2012]. It shall describe those minor amendments, provide a summary of the reason an amendment is required and show that the proposed amendments qualify as minor in accordance with Article 53(2) of Regulation [No 1151/2012]. It shall compare, for each amendment, the original product specification and, where relevant, the original single document with the amended version proposed. The application shall be self-sufficient and shall contain all amendments to the product specification and, where relevant, to the single document for which approval is sought. Minor amendments referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation [No 1151/2012] shall be deemed approved if the Commission does not inform the applicant otherwise within three months from the reception of the application. An application for a minor amendment that does not comply with the second subparagraph of this paragraph shall not be admissible. Tacit approval referred to in the third subparagraph of this paragraph shall not apply to such applications. The Commission shall inform the applicant if the application is deemed inadmissible within three months from the reception of the application. The Commission shall make public the approved minor amendment to a product specification not implying a modification of the elements referred to in Article 50(2) of Regulation [No 1151/2012].’
29

When asked whether there had been a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187, the Court first of all pointed out, in paragraph 39 of the judgment of 25 January 2001, Liikenne (C‑172/99, EU:C:2001:59), that bus transport cannot be regarded as an activity based essentially on manpower, as it requires substantial plant and equipment. The Court added that, accordingly, the fact that the tangible assets used for operating the bus routes were not transferred from the old to the new contractor therefore constitutes a circumstance to be taken into account for the purposes of classification as a transfer of an undertaking. It then held, in paragraph 42 of that judgment, that, since the tangible assets contribute significantly to the performance of that activity, the absence of a transfer to a significant extent from the old to the new contractor of such assets, which are necessary for the proper functioning of the entity concerned, must lead to the conclusion that the entity does not retain its identity. Finally, the Court concluded, in paragraph 43 of that judgment, that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, Directive 77/187 does not apply in the absence of a transfer of significant tangible assets from the old to the new contractor.
13

Article 38 of that directive is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States may apply the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are satisfied that an applicant for international protection will be treated in accordance with the following principles in the third country concerned: (a) life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; (b) there is no risk of serious harm as defined in Directive 2011/95/EU; (c) the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the [Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1189, p. 150, No 2545 (1954)) as supplemented and amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, concluded in New York on 31 January 1967, which entered into force on 4 October 1967 (“the Geneva Convention”)] is respected; (d) the prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected; and (e) the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention. 2. The application of the safe third country concept shall be subject to rules laid down in national law, including: (a) rules requiring a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country; (b) rules on the methodology by which the competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country concept may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant. Such methodology shall include case-by-case consideration of the safety of the country for a particular applicant and/or national designation of countries considered to be generally safe; (c) rules in accordance with international law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall permit the applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the grounds that the third country is not safe in his or her particular circumstances. The applicant shall also be allowed to challenge the existence of a connection between him or her and the third country in accordance with point (a). 3. When implementing a decision solely based on this Article, Member States shall: (a) inform the applicant accordingly; and (b) provide him or her with a document informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that country, that the application has not been examined in substance. 4. Where the third country does not permit the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II. 5. Member States shall inform the Commission periodically of the countries to which this concept is applied in accordance with the provisions of this Article.’
33

In the present case, the referring court provided the Court with the factual and legal material necessary to enable it to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it and set out the reasons why it considered that the interpretation of the provisions cited in the questions referred is necessary for the purpose of adjudicating on the case pending before it. Furthermore, as the Advocate General observed in point 30 of his Opinion, the Court’s answers to the questions referred as to the scope, first, of Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 and, second, of Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909 can have a direct effect on the action to be taken by the referring court with regard to the European arrest warrant at issue in the main proceedings, with the result that the view cannot be taken that the questions referred bear no relation to the subject matter of the main proceedings. In addition, as the Advocate General noted in point 31 of his Opinion, while it is, at this stage of the proceedings, impossible to know, in view of, inter alia, the presumption of innocence, whether or not SF will be found guilty of the offences with which he is charged and, still less whether a custodial sentence or a detention order, if any, will be imposed on him, the fact remains that that hypothetical nature is inherent in the normal course taken by criminal proceedings and, inter alia, in any guarantee provided under Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584. Consequently, the argument of the Netherlands Government, alleging that the questions submitted are hypothetical, by reason of the fact that the outcome of the criminal proceedings is uncertain, is not relevant.
7

Paragraph 69 of that law, concerning the school transport service, establishes that: ‘(1) The Landkreise and towns not attached to a Landkreis shall be responsible for ensuring, as a mandatory task falling within the self-government of those authorities, the transport of students resident in Rhineland-Palatinate to the primary schools and special needs schools in their territory, provided that those students cannot reasonably be expected to travel to school without using a means of transport. This provision also applies to the transport of students: 1. To the nearest secondary school … If the school attended is outside Rhineland-Palatinate, the Landkreis or town not attached to a Landkreis in whose territory the student resides shall pay the transport costs. (2) A student cannot reasonably be expected to travel to the school which he attends without using a means of transport if the journey is particularly dangerous or if the shortest distance on foot, and not posing any particular danger, between his residence and the primary or secondary school … which he attends is greater than two kilometres in the case of a primary school or four kilometres in the case of a secondary school. … (3) If the school attended is not the nearest school for the purposes of subparagraph 1 [second sentence, point 1] above, the transport costs shall be paid only up to the amount which would have been paid for the transport of the student to the nearest school. When determining the nearest school, only schools offering the chosen first foreign language shall be taken into account. … (4) The task shall be accomplished primarily by paying the transport costs for use of public means of transport. If the public transport network does not provide a service which the student can reasonably be expected to use, a school bus service should normally be provided. The costs of using any other means of transport shall be paid only up to the amount which would be incurred under the first sentence above.’
49

In the present case, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether, in the light of any evidence that Agrobet may have provided, the tax authority identified or should have identified clearly, precisely and unequivocally, at any stage of the tax inspection procedure at issue in the main proceedings, the existence of an undisputed portion of excess VAT and, in particular, whether that authority established or should have established that the amount of tax due and the amount of deductible tax relating to the transactions falling outside the scope of that procedure were not capable of varying, before the conclusion of the procedure, from the figures declared by the taxable person. It is also for the referring court to ascertain whether the tax authority was, or should have been, able, having regard to the concerns which it raised in the procedure and in the light of all of the documentation for the procedure and the relevant circumstances of the case, to determine in the same way that excess VAT, the amount of which might be less than that relating to the transactions falling outside the scope of the review, would remain regardless of the outcome of the inspection procedure. In its determination, the referring court should take particular account of the possible sanctions which the taxable person might incur if a partial or provisional refund is made of the portion of excess VAT claimed in the event that the tax inspection proves successful.
20

Article 52, relating to ‘conformity clearance’, of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, No 1290/2005, and (EC) No 485/2008’ (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549, and corrigendum OJ 2016 L 130, p. 13), is set out in Section II, entitled ‘Clearance’, of Chapter IV, itself entitled ‘Clearance of accounts’. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article provide: ‘2. The Commission shall assess the amounts to be excluded on the basis of the gravity of the non-conformity recorded. It shall take due account of the nature of the infringement and of the financial damage caused to the Union. It shall base the exclusion on the identification of amounts unduly spent and, where these cannot be identified with proportionate effort, may apply extrapolated or flat-rate corrections. Flat-rate corrections shall only be applied where, due to the nature of the case or because the Member State has not provided the Commission with the necessary information, it is not possible with proportionate effort to identify more precisely the financial damage caused to the Union. 3. Before the adoption of any decision to refuse financing, the findings from the Commission’s inspection and the Member State’s replies shall be notified in writing, following which the two parties shall attempt to reach agreement on the action to be taken. At that point in the procedure the Member States shall be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the actual extent of the non-compliance is less than in the Commission’s assessment. If agreement is not reached, the Member State may request the opening of a procedure aimed at reconciling, within a period of four months, each party’s position. A report of the outcome of the procedure shall be submitted to the Commission. The Commission shall take into account the recommendations in the report before deciding on any refusal of financing and shall give reasons if it decides not to follow those recommendations.’
5

Paragraph 2 of the Transparency Law provides: ‘1. Every association and foundation within the meaning of Paragraph 1(1) must, within 15 days, give notice of the fact that it has become an organisation in receipt of support from abroad where the amount of support it has received in the year in question comes to double the amount stipulated in Paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Law No LIII of 2017 on the prevention of and fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. 2. An organisation in receipt of support from abroad must send the declaration referred to in Paragraph 2(1) to the court with jurisdiction for the place of its registered office (“the court for the place of registration”) and provide the information specified in Annex I. The court for the place of registration shall include the declaration in the records relating to the association or foundation in the register of civil organisations and other organisations considered to be non-commercial (“the register”) and shall record the association or foundation as an organisation in receipt of support from abroad. 3. Applying by analogy the rules laid down in Paragraph 2(1), the organisation in receipt of support from abroad must forward to the court for the place of registration, at the same time as its calculation of the amount received, a declaration containing the information specified in Annex I relating to support received in the previous year. The declaration must set out, for the year in question: (a) where the support is less than 500000 [Hungarian] forints [(HUF) (approximately EUR 1500)] per donor, the information set out in Annex I, point (A), part II, (a) where the support is equal to or more than [HUF] 500000 … per donor, the information set out in Annex I, point (B), part II. 4. By the 15th day of each month, the court for the place of registration must send to the ministry with responsibility for management of the civil information portal the name, registered office and tax identifier of the associations and foundations which it has entered in the register as organisations in receipt of support from abroad in the previous month. The ministry shall disseminate without delay the information forwarded to it in order to ensure that the information is freely available to the public on the electronic platform set up for that purpose. 5. After making its declaration for the purposes of Paragraph 2(1), the organisation in receipt of support from abroad must indicate without delay on its homepage and in its publications and other press products, as provided for in the Law on the freedom of the press and the fundamental rules on media content, that it has been classified as an organisation in receipt of support from abroad within the meaning of this law. 6. The organisation in receipt of support from abroad shall continue to be bound by the obligation laid down in Paragraph 2(5) for as long as it is classified as [such] an organisation for the purposes of this law.’