ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3

Prior to its repeal by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), Directive 95/46, which, according to Article 1 thereof, had the object of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, notably their right to privacy, with regard to the processing of personal data, and the elimination of obstacles to the free movement of such data, stated in recitals 2, 14, 15, 17, 27 and 37: ‘(2) Whereas data-processing systems are designed to serve man; whereas they must, whatever the nationality or residence of natural persons, respect their fundamental rights and freedoms, notably the right to privacy, and contribute to economic and social progress, trade expansion and the well-being of individuals; … (14) Whereas, given the importance of the developments under way, in the framework of the information society, of the techniques used to capture, transmit, manipulate, record, store or communicate sound and image data relating to natural persons, this Directive should be applicable to processing involving such data; (15) Whereas the processing of such data is covered by this Directive only if it is automated or if the data processed are contained or are intended to be contained in a filing system structured according to specific criteria relating to individuals, so as to permit easy access to the personal data in question; … (17) Whereas, as far as the processing of sound and image data carried out for purposes of journalism or the purposes of literary or artistic expression is concerned, in particular in the audiovisual field, the principles of the Directive are to apply in a restricted manner according to the provisions laid down in Article 9; … (27) Whereas the protection of individuals must apply as much to automatic processing of data as to manual processing; whereas the scope of this protection must not in effect depend on the techniques used, otherwise this would create a serious risk of circumvention; whereas, nonetheless, as regards manual processing, this Directive covers only filing systems, not unstructured files; … … (37) Whereas the processing of personal data for purposes of journalism or for purposes of literary of artistic expression, in particular in the audiovisual field, should qualify for exemption from the requirements of certain provisions of this Directive in so far as this is necessary to reconcile the fundamental rights of individuals with freedom of information and notably the right to receive and impart information, as guaranteed in particular in Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [signed at Rome on 4 November 1950]; whereas Member States should therefore lay down exemptions and derogations necessary for the purpose of balance between fundamental rights as regards general measures on the legitimacy of data processing, ...’
12

In view of certain inaccuracies in the replies provided by the Italian authorities and as a result of the judgment of 2 December 2014, Commission v Italy (C‑196/13, EU:C:2014:2407), in which the Court found that the Italian Republic had infringed Article 260(1) TFEU in relation, inter alia, to some existing landfills within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 1999/31, the Commission sent, on 19 June 2015, an additional reasoned opinion in which it clarified the distinction between the infringement procedure at issue in the present case and that which gave rise to that judgment. The Commission stated that the latter concerned the obligation on the competent authorities to adopt a decision relating to each of the landfill sites at issue and dealing with either the permit to continue to operate given to those landfill sites or the closure of the sites, in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 1999/31. It specified that the procedure at issue in the present case relates, however, to the ‘completion’ obligations, namely the obligations to implement the measures which the Member State concerned has already adopted and which may, depending on the landfill sites concerned, relate to a permit to continue to operate given to the landfill site in question as well as its closure. According to the Commission, those completion obligations, depending on the landfill site concerned, therefore consist in the implementation of the measures necessary to its closure in accordance with the second sentence of Article 14(b) of that directive, as well as the adoption of measures necessary to bring it into line with that directive, where it has been authorised to continue to operate under Article 14(c) of that directive.
5

Article 24(1) and (2) of that regulation provides: ‘1. Where a competent authority discovers a shipment that it considers to be an illegal shipment, it shall immediately inform the other competent authorities concerned. 2. If an illegal shipment is the responsibility of the notifier, the competent authority of dispatch shall ensure that the waste in question is: (a) taken back by the notifier de facto; or, if no notification has been submitted; (b) taken back by the notifier de jure; or, if impracticable; (c) taken back by the competent authority of dispatch itself or by a natural or legal person on its behalf; or, if impracticable; (d) alternatively recovered or disposed of in the country of destination or dispatch by the competent authority of dispatch itself or by a natural or legal person on its behalf; or, if impracticable; (e) alternatively recovered or disposed of in another country by the competent authority of dispatch itself or by a natural or legal person on its behalf if all the competent authorities concerned agree. This take-back, recovery or disposal shall take place within 30 days, or such other period as may be agreed between the competent authorities concerned after the competent authority of dispatch becomes aware of or has been advised in writing by the competent authorities of destination or transit of the illegal shipment and informed of the reason(s) therefor. Such advice may result from information submitted to the competent authorities of destination or transit, inter alia, by other competent authorities. In cases of take-back as referred to in (a), (b) and (c), a new notification shall be submitted, unless the competent authorities concerned agree that a duly reasoned request by the initial competent authority of dispatch is sufficient. The new notification shall be submitted by the person or authority listed in (a), (b) or (c) and in accordance with that order. No competent authority shall oppose or object to the return of waste of an illegal shipment. In the case of alternative arrangements as referred to in (d) and (e) by the competent authority of dispatch, a new notification shall be submitted by the initial competent authority of dispatch or by a natural or legal person on its behalf unless the competent authorities concerned agree that a duly reasoned request by that authority is sufficient.’
6

Article 5 of Directive 2014/24, entitled ‘Methods for calculating the estimated value of procurement’, provides: ‘1. The calculation of the estimated value of a procurement shall be based on the total amount payable, net of VAT, as estimated by the contracting authority, including any form of option and any renewals of the contracts as explicitly set out in the procurement documents. Where the contracting authority provides for prizes or payments to candidates or tenderers it shall take them into account when calculating the estimated value of the procurement. … 13. With regard to public service contracts, the basis for calculating the estimated contract value shall, where appropriate, be the following: (a) insurance services: the premium payable and other forms of remuneration; (b) banking and other financial services: the fees, commissions payable, interest and other forms of remuneration; … 14. With regard to public service contracts which do not indicate a total price, the basis for calculating the estimated contract value shall be the following: (a) in the case of fixed-term contracts, where that term is less than or equal to 48 months: the total value for their full term; (b) in the case of contracts without a fixed term or with a term greater than 48 months: the monthly value multiplied by 48.’
3

According to recitals 3, 4, 7, 34, 37, 47 and 49 of Directive 2011/83: ‘(3) Article 169(1) and point (a) of Article 169(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide that the Union is to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection through the measures adopted pursuant to Article 114 thereof. (4) ... The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance … contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity. … (7) Full harmonisation of some key regulatory aspects should considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and traders … Furthermore consumers should enjoy a high common level of protection across the Union. … (34) The trader should give the consumer clear and comprehensible information before the consumer is bound by a distance … contract … … (37) Since in the case of distance sales, the consumer is not able to see the goods before concluding the contract, he should have a right of withdrawal. For the same reason, the consumer should be allowed to test and inspect the goods he has bought to the extent necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and the functioning of the goods. … … (47) Some consumers exercise their right of withdrawal after having used the goods to an extent more than necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and the functioning of the goods. In this case the consumer should not lose the right to withdraw but should be liable for any diminished value of the goods. In order to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the consumer should only handle and inspect them in the same manner as he would be allowed to do in a shop. For example, the consumer should only try on a garment and should not be allowed to wear it. Consequently, the consumer should handle and inspect the goods with due care during the withdrawal period. The obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal should not discourage the consumer from exercising his right of withdrawal. … (49) Certain exceptions from the right of withdrawal should exist … for distance … contracts. A right of withdrawal could be inappropriate for example given the nature of particular goods or services. ...’
11

Article 90(1) to (3) of that law provides: ‘1. With regard to goods and services used to conduct transactions in connection with which he has the right to reduce the amount of tax due and transactions in connection with which he has no such right, the taxable person shall be required to determine separately the amounts of input tax paid in connection with transactions in respect of which he has the right to reduce the amount of tax due. 2. Where it is not possible to separate, in whole or in part, the amounts referred to in paragraph 1, the taxable person may reduce the amount of tax due by such part of the amount of input tax which can be apportioned proportionately to transactions in respect of which he has the right to reduce the amount of tax due … 3. The proportion referred to in paragraph 2 shall be determined as a share of the annual turnover from the transactions in respect of which the taxable person has the right to reduce the amount of tax due, calculated on the basis of the overall turnover obtained from both transactions in connection with which he has the right to reduce the amount of tax due and transactions in connection with which he has no such right.’
3

Recitals 20 to 22 and 62 of Regulation No 650/2012 state: ‘(20) This Regulation should respect the different systems for dealing with matters of succession applied in the Member States. For the purposes of this Regulation, the term “court” should therefore be given a broad meaning so as to cover not only courts in the true sense of the word, exercising judicial functions, but also the notaries or registry offices in some Member States who or which, in certain matters of succession, exercise judicial functions like courts, and the notaries and legal professionals who, in some Member States, exercise judicial functions in a given succession by delegation of power by a court. All courts as defined in this Regulation should be bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation. Conversely, the term “court” should not cover non-judicial authorities of a Member State empowered under national law to deal with matters of succession, such as the notaries in most Member States where, as is usually the case, they are not exercising judicial functions. (21) This Regulation should allow all notaries who have competence in matters of succession in the Member States to exercise such competence. Whether or not the notaries in a given Member State are bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation should depend on whether or not they are covered by the term “court” for the purposes of this Regulation. (22) Acts issued by notaries in matters of succession in the Member States should circulate under this Regulation. When notaries exercise judicial functions they are bound by the rules of jurisdiction, and the decisions they give should circulate in accordance with the provisions on recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions. When notaries do not exercise judicial functions they are not bound by the rules of jurisdiction, and the authentic instruments they issue should circulate in accordance with the provisions on authentic instruments. … (62) The “authenticity” of an authentic instrument should be an autonomous concept covering elements such as the genuineness of the instrument, the formal prerequisites of the instrument, the powers of the authority drawing up the instrument and the procedure under which the instrument is drawn up. It should also cover the factual elements recorded in the authentic instrument by the authority concerned, such as the fact that the parties indicated appeared before that authority on the date indicated and that they made the declarations indicated. A party wishing to challenge the authenticity of an authentic instrument should do so before the competent court in the Member State of origin of the authentic instrument under the law of that Member State.’
13

In those circumstances, the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal, The Hague) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) (a) Is a retailer which sends back an object returned by a consumer, or an object in its product range that has become redundant, to its supplier (namely the importer, wholesaler, distributor, producer or anyone else from whom it has obtained the object) pursuant to the agreement between the retailer and its supplier to be regarded as a holder which discards the object, within the meaning of Article 3(1)of [Directive 2008/98]? (b) Would the answer to Question [1(a)] be different if the object is one which has an easily repairable fault or defect? (c) Would the answer to Question [1(a)] be different if the object is one which has a fault or defect of such extent or severity that it is, as a result, no longer suitable or usable for its original purpose? (2) (a) Is a retailer or supplier which sells on an object returned by a consumer, or an object in its product range which has become redundant, to a buyer (of residual consignments) to be regarded as a holder which discards the object, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [Directive 2008/98]? (b) Is the answer to Question [2(a)] affected by the amount of the purchase price to be paid by the buyer to the retailer or supplier? (c) Would the answer to Question [2(a)] be different if the object is one which has an easily repairable fault or defect? (d) Would the answer to Question [2(a)] be different if the object is one which has a fault or defect of such extent or severity that it is, as a result, no longer suitable or usable for its original purpose? (3) (a) Is the buyer which sells on to a (foreign) third party a large consignment of goods bought from retailers and suppliers and returned by consumers, and/or goods that have become redundant, to be regarded as a holder which discards a consignment of goods, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [Directive 2008/98]? (b) Is the answer to Question [3(a)] affected by the amount of the purchase price to be paid by the third party to the buyer? (c) Would the answer to Question [3(a)] be different if the consignment of goods also contains some goods which have an easily repairable fault or defect? (d) Would the answer to Question [3(a)] be different if the consignment of goods also contains some goods which have a fault or defect of such extent or severity that the object in question is no longer, as a result, suitable or usable for its original purpose? (e) Is the answer to Questions [3(c) or 3(d)] affected by the percentage of the whole consignment of the goods sold on to the third party that is made up of defective goods? If so, what percentage is the tipping point?’
1.

Declares that, by failing to notify the European Commission of its national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste;
Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Grounds — Ground alleging the illegality of a provision of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Ground raised for the first time in revision proceedings — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; European Data-protection Supervisor, Art. 159)

(see paras 21-25)
Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Shared by the Commission and the Member State

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013, Art. 52(1) and (2); Commission Regulation No 885/2006, Art. 11(1) and (2)

(see paras 40-42)
European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of public funds and of natural or legal persons, bodies or organisations associated with them — Scope of the review

(Art. 275, second paragraph, TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318; Council Regulation 2016/311)

(see paras 22, 23, 39, 40)
Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Obligation for the General Court to clearly and unequivocally disclose its reasoning

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117(m))

(see paras 36-44, 81)
1.

Declares that Romania, on the one hand, by systematically and constantly failing, since 2007 and until 2016 at least, to comply with the daily limit values for concentrations of PM10 and by systematically and constantly failing, since 2007 and until 2014 inclusive, with the exception of 2013, to comply with the annual limit values for concentrations of PM10 in Zone RO32101 (Bucharest, Romania), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI thereto, and, on the other hand, has failed with regard to that zone, since 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV thereto, in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23 (1) of that directive to ensure that the exceedance period be as shorts as possible;
16

Taking the view that the interpretation of the concept of ‘market’ for the purposes of Regulation No 561/2006 was not obvious, the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Higher Regional Court, Oldenburg) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘Can a livestock wholesaler who purchases live animals from a farmer and transports them within a distance of up to 100 km to a slaughterhouse, to which he sells the animals, rely on the exception provided in Article 13(1)(p) of Regulation … No 561/2006 … — “vehicles used for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses within a radius of up to 100 km” — because the purchase from the farmer is a “market” within the meaning of that provision or the livestock trade undertaking is itself to be regarded as a market? If there is no “market” within the meaning of that provision: Can a livestock wholesaler who purchases live animals from a farmer and transports them within a radius of up to 100 km to a slaughterhouse, to which he sells the animals, rely on that exception by applying the aforesaid rule by analogy?’
9

Article 186bis of the Law on bankruptcy, entitled ‘Arrangements with creditors as a going concern’, provides: ‘1. When the insolvency plan referred to in Article 161(2)(e) provides for the activity of the undertaking to be continued by the debtor, for the transfer of the continuing business, or for the continuing business to be assigned into one or more companies, including newly formed companies, the provisions of this article shall apply. The plan may also provide for the sale of assets that are not necessary for the operation of the undertaking. … 4. After the application has been submitted, participation in procedures for the award of public contracts must be authorised by the court, after hearing the opinion of the judicial auditor, if appointed; if no judicial auditor has been appointed, the court shall decide. 5. Admission to an arrangement with creditors shall not prevent participation in procedures for the award of public contracts provided that the undertaking submits for the purpose of the call for tenders: (a) a report by an expert fulfilling the conditions set out in Article 67(3)(d) confirming that participation consistent with the plan and the contract could reasonably be performed; (b) a declaration by another operator fulfilling the general conditions relating to financial, technical and economic capacities, as well as certification required for the award of the contract, who has undertaken, in relation to the tenderer and the contracting authority, to make available, for the duration of the contract, the resources necessary to perform the contract, and to take over from the assisted undertaking if the latter becomes insolvent during the tender procedure or after the contract has been entered into, or is for any other reason no longer in a position properly to perform the contract. Article 49 of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006 shall apply. 6. Subject to the provisions of the previous paragraph, the undertaking that has entered into an arrangement with creditors may also participate in an ad hoc tendering consortium, provided it is not acting as principal and that the other undertakings forming the consortium are not subject to collective proceedings. In that circumstance, the declaration referred to in the fourth subparagraph under (b) may also be made by an operator belonging to the consortium. …’