ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by not preparing, within the prescribed period, all the river basin management plans, both for river basin districts lying entirely within its territory and for international river basin districts, and by not communicating to the European Commission a copy of those plans, within the prescribed period, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and, furthermore, that by not beginning, within the prescribed period, all the public information and consultation procedures concerning the draft river basin management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive;
5

Article 2 of that directive provides: ‘1. Member States shall prohibit any person referred to in the second subparagraph who possesses inside information from using that information by acquiring or disposing of, or by trying to acquire or dispose of, for his own account or for the account of a third party, either directly or indirectly, financial instruments to which that information relates. The first subparagraph shall apply to any person who possesses that information: (a) by virtue of his membership of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of the issuer; or (b) by virtue of his holding in the capital of the issuer; or (c) by virtue of his having access to the information through the exercise of his employment, profession or duties; or (d) by virtue of his criminal activities. 2. Where the person referred to in paragraph 1 is a legal person, the prohibition laid down in that paragraph shall also apply to the natural persons who take part in the decision to carry out the transaction for the account of the legal person concerned. 3. This Article shall not apply to transactions conducted in the discharge of an obligation that has become due to acquire or dispose of financial instruments where that obligation results from an agreement concluded before the person concerned possessed inside information.’
9

On 17 December 2007, the Riga Region customs office of the VID adopted a decision requiring Mr Treimanis to pay the sum of LVL 2 257.64 by way of import duties, value added tax and a fine. That decision was upheld by a decision of the director of the VID of 9 May 2008. The director found that Mr Treimanis had not satisfied the conditions laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 918/83, since the motor vehicle at issue in the main proceedings could not be regarded as intended for meeting the needs of the household composed of Mr Treimanis and his son. According to the information in the population register, although Mr Treimanis’ son resided in Riga, he was a student in Tallinn (Estonia), he was not working and he was wholly dependent on his father. In addition, Mr Treimanis’ registered place of residence was still in the United States, where he had been resident since the autumn of 2007. In those circumstances, the director of the VID inferred that Mr Treimanis and his son were not living together and that the motor vehicle could not be regarded as having been imported for the needs of the household.
12

In those circumstances, the referring court decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. The principal question in the present case is whether the services provided by landlords under a lease agreement with their tenants (“the Services”) should be regarded as an element of a single exempt supply of a lease of land, either because the Services form objectively a single indivisible economic supply together with the lease or because they are “ancillary” to the lease, which forms the principal supply (“the Principal Supply”). In determining this question and in the light of the [Court of Justice’s] decision in Case C-572/07 [RLRE] Tellmer [Property [2009] ECR I-4983], how relevant is it that the Services could be (but are not in fact) supplied by persons other than the landlords, albeit under the terms of the present leases in question the tenants had no choice but to receive the services from the landlords? 2. In determining whether there is a single supply, is it relevant that a failure by the tenant to pay the service charge would entitle the landlord not only to refuse to provide the Services but also to terminate the lease agreement with the tenant? 3. If the answer to Question 1 is that the possibility of third parties providing the Services direct to the tenant is relevant, is it merely a contributory factor in determining whether the Services are either a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split or an ancillary supply to the Principal Supply, or is it a determining factor? If it is merely a contributory factor or if it is not relevant at all, what other factors are relevant in determining whether the Services are an ancillary supply? In particular how relevant is it whether the Services are performed in or in respect of the demised premises which are the subject matter of the letting or in other parts of the building? 4. If the possibility of third parties providing the Services is relevant, is more particularly what is relevant whether the Services could as a legal matter be supplied by third parties, even if this would be difficult in practice to organise or agree with the landlord, or is the practical possibility or the common practice in the provision of such services the relevant consideration? 5. The Services in the present case represent a range of services provided in return for a single service charge. In the event that some of these services (e.g. cleaning of common parts, the provision of security services) are not part of a single indivisible economic supply or are to be regarded as ancillary to the Principal Supply, but other services are, would it be correct to apportion the total consideration between the various services in order to determine the portion of the consideration chargeable to tax and that portion not so chargeable? Alternatively would it be correct to regard the range of services provided as so closely linked to each other that they form “a single indivisible economic supply which it would be artificial to split” being of itself a single supply separate from the leasing of property?’
8

Article 17 of Regulation No 1206/2001, which governs the direct taking of evidence by the requesting court, provides: ‘1. Where a court requests to take evidence directly in another Member State, it shall submit a request to the central body or the competent authority … in that State … … 3. The taking of evidence shall be performed by a member of the judicial personnel or by any other person such as an expert, who will be designated, in accordance with the law of the Member State of the requesting court. 4. Within 30 days of receiving the request, the central body or the competent authority of the requested Member State shall inform the requesting court if the request is accepted and, if necessary, under what conditions according to the law of its Member State such performance is to be carried out … In particular, the central body or the competent authority may assign a court of its Member State to take part in the performance of the taking of evidence in order to ensure the proper application of this Article and the conditions that have been set out. The central body or the competent authority shall encourage the use of communications technology, such as videoconferences and teleconferences. 5. The central body or the competent authority may refuse direct taking of evidence only if: (a) the request does not fall within the scope of this Regulation as set out in Article 1; (b) the request does not contain all of the necessary information pursuant to Article 4; or (c) the direct taking of evidence requested is contrary to fundamental principles of law in its Member State. 6. Without prejudice to the conditions laid down in accordance with paragraph 4, the requesting court shall execute the request in accordance with the law of its Member State.’
3

The first, third and fourth recitals in the preamble to Directive 90/435 state: ‘Whereas the grouping together of companies of different Member States may be necessary in order to create within the Community conditions analogous to those of an internal market and in order thus to ensure the establishment and effective functioning of the common market; whereas such operations ought not to be hampered by restrictions, disadvantages or distortions arising in particular from the tax provisions of the Member States; … … Whereas the existing tax provisions which govern the relations between parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States vary appreciably from one Member State to another and are generally less advantageous than those applicable to parent companies and subsidiaries of the same Member State; whereas cooperation between companies of different Member States is thereby disadvantaged in comparison with cooperation between companies of the same Member State; whereas it is necessary to eliminate this disadvantage by the introduction of a common system in order to facilitate the grouping together of companies; Whereas where a parent company by virtue of its association with its subsidiary receives distributed profits, the State of the parent company must: — either refrain from taxing such profits, — or tax such profits while authorizing the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax due that fraction of the corporation tax paid by the subsidiary which relates to those profits.’
9

Adjustments of entitlement to a VAT deduction for a given tax period are governed inter alia by Article 79 of the ZDDS, which provides: ‘... (3) A taxable person who has wholly or partly deducted input tax in respect of any goods produced, purchased, acquired or imported by him shall calculate and be liable for tax in the amount of the deduction made, where the goods have been destroyed, a shortfall has been established or the goods have been classified as wastage, or their intended use has been altered and the new intended use no longer gives entitlement to deduction. (4) The adjustment … shall be made in the tax period during which the relevant circumstances have occurred … ... (6) ... the taxable person shall be liable for a tax on all goods and services which are capital goods for the purposes of the Law on corporation tax ...’
5

Article 94 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000 (OJ 2000 L 188, p. 1) provides: ‘1. Subsequent verifications of certificates of origin Form A … shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities in the Community have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of this section. 2. For the purposes of implementing the provisions of paragraph 1, the customs authorities in the Community shall return the certificate of origin Form A and the invoice, if it has been submitted, ... to the competent governmental authorities in the exporting beneficiary country giving, where appropriate, the reasons for the enquiry. Any documents and information obtained suggesting that the information given on the proof of origin is incorrect shall be forwarded in support of the request for verification. If the said authorities decide to suspend the granting of the tariff preferences … while awaiting the results of the verification, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary. 3. When an application for subsequent verification has been made in accordance with paragraph 1, such verification shall be carried out and its results communicated to the customs authorities in the Community … The results shall be such as to establish whether the proof of origin in question applies to the products actually exported and whether these products can be considered as products originating in the beneficiary country or in the Community. ...’
2

Article 11 of Law 3631/2008 provides: ‘1. In respect of strategic public limited undertakings having, or having had, a monopoly, in particular with regard to companies owning, operating or managing national infrastructure networks, the acquisition by a shareholder other than the Greek State or by companies related to that shareholder … or by shareholders acting jointly and in a concerted manner of voting rights representing more than 20% of the total share capital shall be subject to prior authorisation by the Inter-ministerial Privatisation Committee established by Law 3049/2002, in accordance with the procedure laid down thereby. 2. Authorisation shall be granted on condition that the general interest criteria for ensuring the continuity of the services provided and the operation of the networks are met. For indicative purposes, the evaluation criteria taken into account are the following: (a) the experience of third-party shareholders in the field of activity of the companies above, (b) their solvency, (c) information relating to their investment strategies, (d) the transparency of their transactions, (e) their detailed business plans, (f) the size and type of their investment programme, (g) their system of ownership, (h) preservation of jobs, (i) the structure of their share capital and, in particular, the holdings of funds established outside the European Union, under the principle of transparency and reciprocity, (j) the decision-making procedure. 3. The decisions of those strategic undertakings relating to the abovementioned subjects shall be subject to authorisation by the Minister for Finance for purposes of general interest: (a) dissolution of the undertaking, its placing in liquidation and the designation of liquidators; (b) restructuring the abovementioned undertakings: conversion, merger with another company, merger with the creation of a new public limited company, break-up in any form whatsoever or break-up of one or more divisions liable to place in jeopardy the supply of services in the sectors of strategic importance; (c) transfer, transformation or conversion, disposal, supply as a guarantee, as well as transformation or alteration of the allocation of strategic elements of the assets of the abovementioned undertakings and of the basic networks and infrastructure necessary for the economic and social life of the country as well as its security. 4. The authorisation referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be granted by ministerial decree published within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of the decision to the Minister. Lack of a response within that period shall be deemed to amount to a granting of the required authorisation. …’ .
14

Under Article 22(2) and (4) of this directive: ‘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. ... 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 Community measures and planned Community 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.’
34

In those circumstances the Rechtbank Haarlem decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. In the light of its examination … concerning print and copying speeds, the Rechtbank [Haarlem] requests the Court of Justice to provide it with further guidance on the answer to the question of the significance to be attached to a situation in which the print and copying speeds are determined by the same printing unit and the difference in speed between those functions is attributable solely to the fact that a document to be copied must first be scanned before printing can take place? 2. In the light of its examination ... concerning the number of paper trays and the presence of a sheet feeder, the Rechtbank [Haarlem] requests the Court of Justice to clarify whether its guidance in the judgment in [Kip Europe and Others] in that connection must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of more than one paper tray and a sheet feeder are objective characteristics which indicate that the device concerned is a copying device rather than a printing unit? 3. In the light of its examination ... concerning the appraisal of the question as to what is the essential characteristic of the devices here at issue, in the light of, inter alia, the criteria laid down by the Cour d’appel de Paris in its judgment of 20 May 2010 in this matter with regard to devices similar to those here at issue, the Rechtbank [Haarlem] requests the Court of Justice to provide it with further guidance on the question whether the value and weight of the central printing unit (the print engine) must be attributed to the print function or to the copying function and whether the value and weight of the scanner must be fully or partly attributed to the copying function? 4. In the light of the examination carried out by the Rechtbank [Haarlem] ..., is the rate of customs duty of 6% specified for CN code 8443 31 91 by Regulation No 1031/2008 valid in so far as it applies to MFPs [multifunctional printers] which, according to the guidance given by the Court of Justice in its judgment in [Kip Europe and Others], ought to have been classified under CN code 8471 60 20 if they were imported before 1 January 2007?’
7

At the time of the expiry of the deadline laid down in the reasoned opinion of 23 November 2009, the website of the Directorate General of Customs and Excise of the Ministry of the Budget stated: ‘General matters If, when you travel to other countries of the European Union, you buy goods for your personal use, you will not be required to submit a declaration or to pay duties or taxes at the time of departure from or arrival in France. … If you buy … tobacco, Community legislation has provided for guide thresholds relating to purchases by private individuals. Above the thresholds applicable to tobacco … set out below, and on the basis of other criteria, your purchases may be deemed to be commercial by the French customs services. In that case, you must pay the duties and taxes applicable in France in respect of each product. These thresholds also apply in the case of departures from France to another Member State of the European Union. Tobacco Pursuant to Articles 575 G and 575 H of the [CGI] … the following provisions will apply with effect from 1 January 2006 to purchases of tobacco by private individuals in another Member State of the European Union, with the exception of the 10 new Member States: — You may bring back five cartons of cigarettes (in other words, 1 kilogram of tobacco) without holding a movement document. Warning: the threshold applies per individual mode of transport or per person over the age of 17 in the case of public transport (the latter meaning any mode of transport carrying more than nine people, including the driver). — Where between 6 and 10 cartons are brought back, you must present a simplified accompanying document (SAD). In the absence of a SAD, a traveller who undergoes checks risks seizure of the tobacco and a penalty. The individual may abandon these quantities. In that case, no penalty will be imposed. To obtain this document, you simply need to go to the first French customs office after the border. — It is prohibited to bring in more than 10 cartons of cigarettes (or 2 kilograms of tobacco) in all cases. A person who undergoes checks risks the sanctions (seizure of the tobacco and a penalty) referred to above. In the case of public modes of transport (aircraft, ship, bus, train), these provisions apply per passenger.’
9

Framework Decision 2009/299 sets out the grounds for refusing to execute a European arrest warrant where the person concerned did not appear in person at his trial. Recitals 1 to 4 and 10 state: ‘1. The right of an accused person to appear in person at the trial is included in the right to a fair trial provided for in Article 6 of the [ECHR], as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has also declared that the right of the accused person to appear in person at the trial is not absolute and that under certain conditions the accused person may, of his or her own free will, expressly or tacitly but unequivocally, waive that right. 2. The various Framework Decisions implementing the principle of mutual recognition of final judicial decisions do not deal consistently with the issue of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person. This diversity could complicate the work of the practitioner and hamper judicial cooperation. 3. … Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA … allows the executing authority to require the issuing authority to give an assurance deemed adequate to guarantee the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant that he or she will have an opportunity to apply for a retrial of the case in the issuing Member State and to be present when the judgment is given. The adequacy of such an assurance is a matter to be decided by the executing authority, and it is therefore difficult to know exactly when execution may be refused. 4. It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common grounds for non-recognition of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person. This Framework Decision is aimed at refining the definition of such common grounds allowing the executing authority to execute the decision despite the absence of the person at the trial, while fully respecting the person’s right of defence. This Framework Decision is not designed to regulate the forms and methods, including procedural requirements, that are used to achieve the results specified in this Framework Decision, which are a matter for the national laws of the Member States. … 10. The recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person should not be refused where the person concerned, being aware of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor to whom he or she had given a mandate to do so, ensuring that legal assistance is practical and effective. In this context, it should not matter whether the legal counsellor was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned, or whether this legal counsellor was appointed and paid by the State, it being understood that the person concerned should deliberately have chosen to be represented by a legal counsellor instead of appearing in person at the trial. …’