ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
12

Article 22 of that directive, entitled ‘Postponement of attainment deadlines and exemption from the obligation to apply certain limit values’, is worded as follows: ‘1. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide or benzene cannot be achieved by the deadlines specified in Annex XI, a Member State may postpone those deadlines by a maximum of five years for that particular zone or agglomeration, on condition that an air quality plan is established in accordance with Article 23 for the zone or agglomeration to which the postponement would apply; such air quality plan shall be supplemented by the information listed in Section B of Annex XV related to the pollutants concerned and shall demonstrate how conformity will be achieved with the limit values before the new deadline. 2. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for PM10 as specified in Annex XI cannot be achieved because of site-specific dispersion characteristics, adverse climatic conditions or transboundary contributions, a Member State shall be exempt from the obligation to apply those limit values until 11 June 2011 provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and that the Member State shows that all appropriate measures have been taken at national, regional and local level to meet the deadlines. 3. Where a Member State applies paragraphs 1 or 2, it shall ensure that the limit value for each pollutant is not exceeded by more than the maximum margin of tolerance specified in Annex XI for each of the pollutants concerned. 4. Member States shall notify the Commission where, in their view, paragraphs 1 or 2 are applicable, and shall communicate the air quality plan referred to in paragraph 1 including all relevant information necessary for the Commission to assess whether or not the relevant conditions are satisfied. In its assessment, the Commission shall take into account estimated effects on ambient air quality in the Member States, at present and in the future, of measures that have been taken by the Member States as well as estimated effects on ambient air quality of current [EU] measures and planned [EU] measures to be proposed by the Commission. Where the Commission has raised no objections within nine months of receipt of that notification, the relevant conditions for the application of paragraphs 1 or 2 shall be deemed to be satisfied. If objections are raised, the Commission may require Member States to adjust or provide new air quality plans.’
Action for annulment – Time limits – Mandatory – Point from which time starts to run – Notification – Infringement of the right to an effective remedy – None

(Art. 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47);

(see para. 53)
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time limit, all the necessary national provisions to comply with Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, relating to the installation in buildings of devices for the individual measurement of heating, cooling and hot water consumption, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime – Rights of the defence – Notification of inculpatory evidence – Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures – No new grounds – Inculpatory evidence identical to the evidence previously admitted in the initial decision – Infringement of the right to be heard – Absence

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

(see paras 44-48)
2.

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 facts or evidence have been distorted – Plea alleging distortion of the facts – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 69, 70, 87, 88)
4

The general rules for the interpretation of the CN, which appear in Part One, Section I, A, of the CN, provide inter alia: ‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles: 1. The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions: 2. … (b) Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods of a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of rule 3. 3. When by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods; (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable; … 6. For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section and chapter notes also apply, unless the context requires otherwise.’
7

Article 22 of Directive 97/13, entitled ‘Authorisations existing at the date of entry into force of this Directive’, provides as follows: ‘1. Member States shall make all necessary efforts to bring authorisations in force at the date of entry of this Directive into line with its provisions before 1 January 1999. 2. Where application of the provisions of this Directive results in amendments to the terms of authorisations already in existence, Member States may extend the validity of terms, other than those giving special or exclusive rights which have been or are to be terminated under Community law, provided that this can be done without affecting the rights of other undertakings under Community law, including this Directive. In such cases, Member States shall notify the Commission of the action taken to that end and shall state the reasons therefor. 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2, obligations in authorisations existing at the date of entry into force of this Directive which have not been brought into line by 1 January 1999 with the provisions of this Directive shall be inoperative. Where justified, Member States may, upon request, be granted a deferment of that date by the Commission.’
12

Article 446 of the Zakon o parničnom postupku (Code of Civil Procedure, Narodne novine, br. 53/91, 91/92, 112/99, 117/03, 84/08, 123/08, 57/11, 148/11, 25/13, 70/19), concerning orders for payment, is worded as follows: ‘Where the request set out in the application concerns a claim for sums of money that have fallen due and that claim is established by an authentic document attached to the original of the application or a certified copy of that application, the court shall issue the defendant with an order to satisfy that request [order for payment]. In the application requesting that an order for payment be issued, the applicant must set out the reasons which prompted it to request that this be issued rather than an enforcement order based on an authentic document. If the court considers that the reasons given by the applicant do not justify its interest in obtaining an order for payment, it shall dismiss the action as inadmissible. The applicant shall be deemed to have an interest in an order for payment being issued where the defendant is established outside Croatia or where it has previously contested the claim contained in the authentic document. The court shall issue an order for payment where, although the applicant has not requested such an order in the application, it satisfies all of the conditions for an order for payment to be issued.’
32

As regards the second step of the analysis referred to in paragraph 28 above, it should be noted, first, that the ground for refusal of registration provided for in Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95 may be applied when the graphic representation of the shape of the product allows only part of the shape to be seen, provided that the visible part of the shape is necessary to obtain the technical result sought by that product, even if it is not sufficient, on its own, to obtain that result. Such an interpretation ensures that the objective of that ground for refusal of registration is achieved, since it prevents any monopoly on technical solutions or functional features of the product in question being acquired. Therefore, as the Commission stated in its written observations, that ground for refusal is applicable to a sign consisting of the shape of the product concerned which does not show all the essential characteristics required to obtain the technical result sought, provided that at least one of the essential characteristics required to obtain that technical result is visible in the graphic representation of the shape of that product.
16

In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Administrative Court of Vienna) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the term “resting place” within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive to be interpreted as also including former resting places that have since been abandoned? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: Is every former resting place that has since been abandoned a “resting place” within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive? If the answer to that question is in the negative: Which factors determine whether a former resting place that has since been abandoned is a “resting place” within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive? (2) Which factors determine whether a particular act or omission constitutes interference with a “resting place” within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive? (3) Which factors determine whether a particular act or omission constitutes such serious interference with a “resting place”, within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive, that “deterioration”, within the meaning of that provision, of that “resting place” is to be assumed? (4) Which factors determine whether a particular act or omission constitutes such serious interference with a “resting place”, within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive, that “destruction”, within the meaning of that provision, of that “resting place” is to be assumed? (5) Is the term “breeding site”, within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive, to be interpreted as covering, first, only the precise identifiable location where regular mating in the strict sense or limited acts directly connected with reproduction (such as spawning) take place, and, second, in addition, all precisely identifiable locations essential for the development of young, such as nesting sites or certain parts of plants necessary for the larval or pupal stages? If the answer to that question is in the negative: How should the term “breeding site” within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive be understood, and how is a “breeding site” to be differentiated spatially from other locations? (6) Which factors determine whether a particular act or omission constitutes interference with a “breeding site” within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive? (7) Which factors determine whether a particular act or omission constitutes such serious interference with a “breeding site”, within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive, that “deterioration”, within the meaning of that provision, of that “breeding site” is to be assumed? (8) Which factors determine whether a particular act or omission constitutes such serious interference with a “breeding site”, within the meaning of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive, that “destruction”, within the meaning of that provision, of that “breeding site” is to be assumed?’
18

In those circumstances, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Commercial Court No 9, Barcelona) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Where the loss of a suitcase has been established, must the airline compensate the passenger in each and every case with the maximum compensation limit of 1131 SDRs, since that is the most serious of the situations provided for in Articles 17(2) and 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, or is that maximum compensation limit one which can be adjusted by the court, including in the event of loss of a suitcase, in the light of the circumstances, so that the amount of 1131 SDRs will be awarded only if the passenger establishes, by whatever means are permitted in law, that the value of the items and personal effects he or she was carrying in the checked baggage, and of those which he or she had to purchase to replace them, came to that limit, or, failing that, may other criteria be taken into account, such as, for example, the weight of the suitcase or whether the baggage was lost on the outbound or return journey, for the purposes of assessing the non-material damage caused by the inconvenience arising from the loss of the passenger’s baggage?’
36

In those circumstances, the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Are Article 9(1) and Article 193 of [Directive 2006/112] to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case under consideration, a natural person such as the applicant cannot be regarded as having “independently” carried out the (economic) activity in question and as having to pay by him or herself the [VAT] on the contested supplies, that is to say, for the purposes of Article 9(1) and Article 193 of Directive [2006/112], is the taxable person liable for the obligations at issue to be taken to be the joint activity/partnership (the participants in the joint activity collectively; in the instance under consideration, the applicant and his business partner collectively) – which under national law is not regarded as a taxable person and does not enjoy legal personality – and not solely a natural person such as the applicant? (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 193 of Directive [2006/112] to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case under consideration, VAT is paid individually by each of the participants (in the instance under consideration, the applicant and his business partner) in the joint activity/partnership – which joint activity/partnership is, under national law, not regarded as constituting a taxable person and does not enjoy legal personality – on the part of each payment by way of consideration that is received by them (or is receivable by or owed to them) for the taxable supplies of immovable property? Is Article 287 of Directive [2006/112] to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in this case, the annual turnover referred to in that provision is established by taking into account the entire revenue of the joint activity (received collectively by the participants in the joint activity)?’
4

Article 2 of that regulation, headed ‘Definition of “food”’, provides ‘For the purposes of this Regulation, “food” (or “foodstuff”) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. “Food” includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of [Council] Directive 98/83/EC [of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32)] and without prejudice to the requirements of [Council] Directives 80/778/EEC [of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11)] and 98/83/EC. “Food” shall not include: (a) feed; (b) live animals unless they are prepared for placing on the market for human consumption; (c) plants prior to harvesting; (d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Directives 65/65/EEC [of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1965-1966 p. 20)] and 92/73/EEC [of 22 September 1992 widening the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to medicinal products and laying down additional provisions on homoeopathic medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 297, p. 8)]; (e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/768/EEC [of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169)]; (f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council Directive 89/622/EEC [of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products (OJ 1989 L 359, p. 1)]; (g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs[, signed in New York on 30 March 1961, amended by the 1972 Protocol amending the 1961 Single Convention (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 520, p. 151),] and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances[, signed in Vienna on 21 February 1971 (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1019, p. 175)]; (h) residues and contaminants.’
9

Article 89a of the ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (Dz. U. of 2011, No 177, item 1054) (‘the Law on VAT’), provides: ‘1. A taxable person may adjust the taxable amount and the VAT due in respect of a supply of goods or services made within the national territory where there are debts which it can show are likely to be irrecoverable. The adjustment also concerns the taxable amount and the amount of VAT relating to the portion of those debts which it claims are likely to be irrecoverable. 1a. A debt shall be regarded as likely to be irrecoverable where it has not been settled or assigned in any form whatsoever within 150 days of the expiry of the period for payment indicated in the contract or on the invoice. 2. Paragraph 1 shall apply where the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the supply of goods or services is made to a taxable person, as referred to in Article 15(1), who is registered as a taxable person for the purposes of VAT and who is not subject to insolvency or winding-up proceedings; … (3) on the day preceding that on which the tax return containing the adjustment referred to in paragraph 1 is filed: (a) the creditor and the debtor are registered as taxable persons for the purposes of VAT; (b) the debtor is not subject to insolvency or winding up proceedings; … (5) the period elapsed since the date of issue of the invoice establishing the debt, calculated from the end of the year in which it was issued, does not exceed two years; … 3. The adjustment referred to in paragraph 1 may be made in the tax return for the period during which it has been established that the debt is likely to be irrecoverable, provided that the debt has not been settled or assigned in any form whatsoever on the day on which that tax return was filed by the creditor for that period. 4. Where, following the filing of the tax return recording the adjustment referred to in paragraph 1, the debt is settled or assigned in any form whatsoever, the creditor shall be required to increase the taxable amount and the amount of VAT chargeable in the return for the period during which that debt was settled or assigned. If only part of the debt has been settled, the taxable amount and the amount of VAT chargeable shall increase in proportion to that amount. …’
11

Article 289 of Law No 1/2011 states: ‘1. Teaching and research staff shall retire at the age of 65. … 3. The senates of State, private and faith-based universities may decide, based on professional performance criteria and the financial situation, that a member of the teaching staff or a researcher may continue to work after retirement under a fixed-term, one-year contract, which may be extended annually in accordance with the university’s statutes and regulations, without any restriction on age. A university senate may decide to award the honorary title of professor emeritus for teaching and research excellence to teaching staff who have reached retirement age. Retired members of the teaching staff may be paid on an hourly basis. … 6. By way of derogation from Article 289(1), if higher-education establishments are unable to fill posts with tenured members of staff they may decide that a tenured member of the teaching and/or research staff should retain his or her status, with all the attendant rights and obligations, on the basis of an annual assessment of academic performance, in accordance with a methodology established by the university senate. 7. The reinstatement of retired members of the teaching staff is to be carried out annually and the rights and obligations attaching to the teaching activity carried on prior to retirement shall be maintained, subject to the approval of the university senate, in accordance with the methodology referred to in Article 289(6), provided that the staff member’s pension is suspended throughout the period of reinstatement.’