ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3

The second and third recitals of Directive 86/653 state: ‘Whereas the differences in national laws concerning commercial representation substantially affect the conditions of competition and the carrying-on of that activity within the Community and are detrimental both to the protection available to commercial agents vis-à-vis their principals and to the security of commercial transactions; whereas moreover those differences are such as to inhibit substantially the conclusion and operation of commercial representation contracts where principal and commercial agent are established in different Member States; Whereas trade in goods between Member States should be carried on under conditions which are similar to those of a single market, and this necessitates approximation of the legal systems of the Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market; whereas in this regard the rules concerning conflict of laws do not, in the matter of commercial representation, remove the inconsistencies referred to above, nor would they even if they were made uniform, and accordingly the proposed harmonization is necessary notwithstanding the existence of those rules’.
3

Recitals 10, 12, 21, 23 and 24 of Directive 93/13 state as follows: ‘Whereas more effective protection of the consumer can be achieved by adopting uniform rules of law in the matter of unfair terms; whereas those rules should apply to all contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers; whereas as a result inter alia contracts relating to employment, contracts relating to succession rights, contracts relating to rights under family law and contracts relating to the incorporation and organization of companies or partnership agreements must be excluded from this Directive; … Whereas, however, as they now stand, national laws allow only partial harmonization to be envisaged; whereas, in particular, only contract terms which have not been individually negotiated are covered by this Directive; whereas Member States should have the option, with due regard for the Treaty, to afford consumers a higher level of protection through national provisions that are more stringent than those of this Directive; … Whereas Member States should ensure that unfair terms are not used in contracts concluded with consumers by a seller or supplier and that if, nevertheless, such terms are so used, they will not bind the consumer, and the contract will continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair provisions; … Whereas persons or organisations, if regarded under the law of a Member State as having a legitimate interest in the matter, must have facilities for initiating proceedings concerning terms of contract drawn up for general use in contracts concluded with consumers, and in particular unfair terms, either before a court or before an administrative authority competent to decide upon complaints or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings; whereas this possibility does not, however, entail prior verification of the general conditions obtaining in individual economic sectors; Whereas the courts or administrative authorities of the Member States must have at their disposal adequate and effective means of preventing the continued application of unfair terms in consumer contracts’.
18

Point 7.1, entitled ‘Pharmaceutical advice’, which is in Section 7, entitled ‘Supplementary rules applicable to the electronic commerce of medicinal products’, of the annex to the Decree of 28 November 2016 on best practice in the dispensing of medicinal products in dispensing pharmacies, mutual pharmacies and emergency mining pharmacies referred to in Article L. 5121-5 of the Public Health Code (JORF of 1 December 2016, text No 25; ‘the Decree on best practice in the dispensing of medicinal products’) states: ‘An electronic commerce website for medicinal products shall be designed in such a way that no medicinal product can be dispensed without an interactive exchange being possible between the patient and the pharmacist of the pharmacy concerned before the order is validated. An automated response to a question asked by the patient is therefore not sufficient to ensure information and advice appropriate to the patient’s particular case. Certain personal data concerning the patient are necessary in order for the pharmacist to ensure that the order is appropriate to the patient’s state of health and for him or her to detect possible contra-indications. Thus, prior to validating the first order, the pharmacist must obtain via an online questionnaire information on the patient’s age, weight, height, sex, current treatments, history of allergic reaction, contra-indications and, where appropriate, pregnancy or breastfeeding. The patient must attest to the veracity of that information. The questionnaire shall be completed at the time of the first order, during the process of validating the order. If the questionnaire has not been completed and sent, no medicinal product may be dispensed. The pharmacist must then validate the questionnaire, confirming that he or she has acquainted himself or herself with the information provided by the patient, before validating the order. An opportunity to update the questionnaire shall be provided with each order. …’
44

In those circumstances the examining magistrates of the tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Interpretation of the concept of “[element of] design” (a) What is covered by the concept of “element of design” in Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007, which defines “defeat device”? (b) May a programme integrated in the engine control controller or more generally acting on that calculator be considered to be an “element of design” within the meaning of that article? (2) Interpretation of the concept of “emission control system” (a) What is covered by the concept of “emission control system” in Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007, which defines “defeat device”? (b) Does this emission control system include only the technologies and strategies aimed at treating and reducing emissions (in particular of NOx) after they have been created, or does it also incorporate the different technologies and strategies that enable the initial production of emissions to be limited, such as EGR technology? (3) Interpretation of the concept of “defeat device” (a) Is a device that detects any parameter connected with the conduct of the approval procedures provided for in Regulation No 715/2007, for the purposes of activating or adjusting upwards, during those procedures, the operation of any part of the emission control system, and thus obtaining approval of the vehicle, a “defeat device” within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007? (b) If so, is that defeat device prohibited under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007? (c) May a device as described in Question 3(1) be characterised as a “defeat device” if the upwards adjustment of the activation of the emission control system is effective, not only during the approval procedures, but also on specific occasions when the precise conditions detected for the purpose of adjusting the emission control system upwards during those approval procedures are encountered in actual traffic? (4) Interpretation of the exceptions provided for in Article 5 [of Regulation No 715/2007] (a) What is covered by the three exceptions provided for in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007? (b) Might the prohibition of the defeat device activating or adjusting upwards the operation of any part of the emission control system specifically during the approval procedures be disregarded for one of the three reasons listed in Article 5(2) [of that regulation]? (c) Is slowing down the ageing or the clogging-up of the engine among the requirements of “protecting the engine against damage or accident” or of “safe operation of the vehicle” that may justify the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) [of the regulation]?’
5

Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [EU] trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), entitled ‘Relative grounds for refusal’, provides: ‘1. Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered: (a) if it is identical with the earlier trade mark and the goods or services for which registration is applied for are identical with the goods or services for which the earlier trade mark is protected; (b) if because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. … 3. Upon opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark, a trade mark shall not be registered where an agent or representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor’s consent, unless the agent or representative justifies his action. … 5. Furthermore, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark within the meaning of paragraph 2, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, the earlier trade mark and is to be registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier [EU] trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the [European Union] and, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.’
2

Article 7 TEU provides as follows: ‘1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure. The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply. 2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations. 3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons. The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State. 4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed. 5. The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 354 [TFEU].’
17

Article 5 of that Presidential Decree, headed ‘Successive Contracts’, provides: ‘1. Successive contracts concluded between and performed by the same employer and worker in the same or similar professional activity and under the same or similar terms of employment shall be prohibited if the contracts are separated by a period of less than three months. 2. Such contracts may be concluded, by way of exception, if justified by an objective reason. There is an objective reason if the contracts succeeding the original contract are concluded for the purpose of meeting similar special needs which are directly or indirectly related to the form, the type or the activity of the undertaking. 3. Successive contracts shall be concluded in writing and the reasons justifying their conclusion shall be expressly stated in the contract, unless they are directly apparent from it. By way of exception, the written form shall not be required if the renewed contract has a term of no more than one month, owing to the seasonal nature of the employment, unless the written form is expressly provided for under another provision. The worker shall be provided with a copy of the contract within five working days of the commencement of employment. 4. The number of successive contracts shall not, in any circumstances, be greater than three, subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of the following article.’
2.

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 60-62, 65, 77, 79, 86)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2020 – Stadt Duisburg (Maintenance of the right of residence acquired after naturalisation)

(Case C-720/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 – Article 7, first paragraph – Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker legally employed in a Member State – Naturalisation of the family member concerned in the host Member State – Maintenance of the right of residence – Acquired rights)

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council set up by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 – Family reunification – Right of members of the family of a Turkish worker in the regular labour market of a Member State to take up employment in that Member State and related right of residence – Loss of those rights as a result of the acquisition of the nationality of that Member State and loss of previous nationality – Unlawful

(Council Decision No 1/80 EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Arts 7, first para., and 14(1))

(see paragraphs 21, 24-27, operative part)

Operative part

The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that a member of the family of a Turkish worker who has acquired the rights laid down under that provision shall not lose the benefit of those rights when he or she acquires the nationality of the host Member State while losing his or her previous nationality.

( 1 ) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
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), 2d al., 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 60, 63-66)
Appeal – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – 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), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 51, first para., and 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see paras 36, 37, 49)
3

Recitals 3, 4, 7, 21 and 26 of Directive 2011/83 state: ‘(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 and off-premises 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. … (21) An off-premises contract should be defined as a contract concluded with the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, for example at the consumer’s home or workplace. In an off-premises context, the consumer may be under potential psychological pressure or may be confronted with an element of surprise, irrespective of whether or not the consumer has solicited the trader’s visit. … … (26) Contracts related to the transfer of immovable property or of rights in immovable property or to the creation or acquisition of such immovable property or rights, contracts for the construction of new buildings or the substantial conversion of existing buildings as well as contracts for the rental of accommodation for residential purposes are already subject to a number of specific requirements in national legislation. Those contracts include for instance sales of immovable property still to be developed and hire-purchase. The provisions of this Directive are not appropriate to those contracts, which should therefore be excluded from its scope. A substantial conversion is a conversion comparable to the construction of a new building, for example where only the façade of an old building is retained. Service contracts, in particular those related to the construction of annexes to buildings (for example a garage or a veranda) and those related to repair and renovation of buildings other than substantial conversion, should be included in the scope of this Directive, as well as contracts related to the services of a real estate agent and those related to the rental of accommodation for non-residential purposes.’
3

Recitals 2, 5, 17, 21, 23, 25 and 40 of Directive 2001/83 are worded as follows: ‘(2) The essential aim of any rules governing the production, distribution and use of medicinal products must be to safeguard public health. … (5) Such hindrances must accordingly be removed; whereas this entails approximation of the relevant provisions. … (17) It is necessary to adopt specific provisions for immunological medicinal products, homeopathic medicinal products, radiopharmaceuticals, and medicinal products based on human blood or human plasma. … (21) Having regard to the particular characteristics of these homeopathic medicinal products, such as the very low level of active principles they contain and the difficulty of applying to them the conventional statistical methods relating to clinical trials, it is desirable to provide a special, simplified registration procedure for those homeopathic medicinal products which are placed on the market without therapeutic indications in a pharmaceutical form and dosage which do not present a risk for the patient. … (23) It is desirable in the first instance to provide users of these homeopathic medicinal products with a very clear indication of their homeopathic character and with sufficient guarantees of their quality and safety. … (25) The usual rules governing the authorisation to market medicinal products should be applied to homeopathic medicinal products placed on the market with therapeutic indications or in a form which may present risks which must be balanced against the desired therapeutic effect. In particular, those Member States which have a homeopathic tradition should be able to apply particular rules for the evaluation of the results of tests and trials intended to establish the safety and efficacy of these medicinal products provided that they notify them to the Commission. … (40) The provisions governing the information supplied to users should provide a high degree of consumer protection, in order that medicinal products may be used correctly on the basis of full and comprehensible information.’
13

Article 48 of the Law on electronic communications provides: ‘1. Without prejudice to the legislation applicable to consumer protection, the supply of public communications networks and the supply of publicly accessible electronic communications services must be covered by a contract in which the following information must be set out clearly, exhaustively and in an easily accessible manner: … (g) the term of the contract and the conditions governing renewal, suspension and termination of the services and of the contract; … 2. Information relating to the term of the contract, including conditions governing its renewal and termination, must be clear, intelligible, appear on a durable medium and include the following particulars: (a) any tie-in period which depends on the provision to the consumer of any kind of identified and quantified benefit related to terminal-equipment subsidies, installation and activation of the service or other promotions; (b) any charges incurred as a result of the portability of numbers and other identifiers; (c) any charges incurred as a result of the early termination of the contract during the tie-in period at the subscriber’s request, particularly for the purpose of recovering costs associated with terminal-equipment subsidies, installation and activation of the service or other promotions. … 4. Undertakings supplying electronic communications networks and/or electronic communications services may not oppose the termination of a contract at the subscriber’s request, on the ground that there is a tie-in period, nor may they require the payment of any charges on account of a breach of a tie-in period if they do not have proof of the expression of the consumer’s intention, referred to in the previous paragraph. … 11. During the tie-in period, charges which the subscriber will be required to bear in the event of termination of the contract at the subscriber’s own request shall not exceed the costs which the supplier has incurred as a result of installation of the service; the levying of payments by way of damages or compensation shall be prohibited. 12. Charges resulting from early termination of a contract subject to a tie-in period at the subscriber’s request must be proportionate to the benefit granted to the subscriber, which is identified and quantified in the contract, and may not automatically reflect the total value of the instalments outstanding on the date of termination. 13. For the purposes of the previous paragraph, where terminal equipment has been subsidised, the charges must be calculated in accordance with the applicable legislation and, in other cases, those charges may not exceed the value of the benefit granted which, in proportion to the agreed term of the contract, the undertaking providing the service still has to recover on the date on which the early termination takes effect.’