ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4

Article 3 of that regulation, entitled ‘De minimis aid’, provides: ‘1. Aid measures shall be deemed not to meet all the criteria in Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and shall therefore be exempt from the notification requirement in Article 108(3) of the Treaty, if they fulfil the conditions laid down in this Regulation. 2. The total amount of de minimis aid granted per Member State to a single undertaking shall not exceed EUR 200000 over any period of three fiscal years. … 4. De minimis aid shall be deemed granted at the moment the legal right to receive the aid is conferred on the undertaking under the applicable national legal regime irrespective of the date of payment of the de minimis aid to the undertaking. 5. The ceilings laid down in paragraph 2 shall apply irrespective of the form of the de minimis aid or the objective pursued … The period of three fiscal years shall be determined by reference to the fiscal years used by the undertaking in the Member State concerned. 6. For the purposes of the ceilings laid down in paragraph 2, aid shall be expressed as a cash grant. All figures used shall be gross, that is, before any deduction of tax or other charge. Where aid is granted in a form other than a grant, the aid amount shall be the gross grant equivalent of the aid. Aid payable in several instalments shall be discounted to its value at the moment it is granted. The interest rate to be used for discounting purposes shall be the discount rate applicable at the time the aid is granted. 7. Where the relevant ceiling laid down in paragraph 2 would be exceeded by the grant of new de minimis aid, none of that new aid may benefit from this Regulation. …’
10

Under Article 27 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Possible prosecution for other offences’: ‘1. Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat of the Council that, in its relations with other Member States that have given the same notification, consent is presumed to have been given for the prosecution, sentencing or detention with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender, other than that for which he or she was surrendered, unless in a particular case the executing judicial authority states otherwise in its decision on surrender. 2. Except in the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3, a person surrendered may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered. 3. Paragraph 2 does not apply in the following cases: … (g) where the executing judicial authority which surrendered the person gives its consent in accordance with paragraph 4. 4. A request for consent shall be submitted to the executing judicial authority, accompanied by the information mentioned in Article 8(1) and a translation as referred to in Article 8(2). Consent shall be given when the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to surrender in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision. Consent shall be refused on the grounds referred to in Article 3 and otherwise may be refused only on the grounds referred to in Article 4. The decision shall be taken no later than 30 days after receipt of the request. …’
56

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where the Member State of which the requested person is a national, that person being a Union citizen who is the subject of an extradition request sent, by a third State, to another Member State, has been informed by that other Member State of the existence of the request, neither of those Member States is obliged to ask the third State requesting extradition to send to them a copy of the criminal investigation file in order to enable the Member State of which that person is a national to assess the possibility that it might itself conduct a criminal prosecution of that person. Provided that it has duly informed the Member State of which that person is a national of the existence of the extradition request, of all the elements of fact and law communicated by the third State requesting extradition within the framework of that request, and of any changes in the situation of the requested person that might be relevant to the possibility of issuing a European arrest warrant with respect to him or her, the requested Member State may extradite that person without being obliged to wait for the Member State of which that person is a national to waive, by a formal decision, the issue of such an arrest warrant, concerning, at least, the same offences as those referred to in the extradition request, where the latter Member State fails to issue such an arrest warrant before the expiry of a reasonable time limit imposed on it for that purpose by the requested Member State, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case.
6

Title VI of Regulation No 207/2009, entitled ‘Surrender, revocation and invalidity’, contains Section 2 relating to ‘grounds for revocation’, Article 51 of which, also entitled ‘Grounds for revocation’, provides in paragraph 1: ‘The rights of the proprietor of the [EU] trade mark shall be declared to be revoked on application to the [European Union Intellectual Property] Office [(EUIPO)] or on the basis of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings: (a) if, within a continuous period of five years, the trade mark has not been put to genuine use in the [Union] in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use; however, no person may claim that the proprietor’s rights in a[n EU] trade mark should be revoked where, during the interval between expiry of the five-year period and filing of the application or counterclaim, genuine use of the trade mark has been started or resumed; the commencement or resumption of use within a period of three months preceding the filing of the application or counterclaim which began at the earliest on expiry of the continuous period of five years of non-use shall, however, be disregarded where preparations for the commencement or resumption occur only after the proprietor becomes aware that the application or counterclaim may be filed; (b) if, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, the trade mark has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered; (c) if, in consequence of the use made of it by the proprietor of the trade mark or with his consent in respect of the goods or services for which it is registered, the trade mark is liable to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of those goods or services.’
9

Article 64 of Law No 21/1996 on competition, in the version resulting from Government Emergency Order No 31/2015 (‘the amended Law on competition’), which replaced Article 62 of the Law on Competition, provides: ‘(1) Any action taken by the Competition Authority for the purpose of a preliminary examination or for the prosecution of an infringement of the law shall interrupt the limitation periods provided for in Article 63 [ex Article 61]. The interruption of the limitation period shall take effect on the day on which the measure adopted by the Competition Authority is notified to at least one economic operator or to an association of economic operators which participated in the infringement. (2) Measures which may be taken by the Competition Authority which interrupt the limitation period are mainly the following: (a) written requests for information; (b) the decision of the President of the Competition Authority to initiate an investigation; (c) the conduct of inspections; (d) the communication of the investigation report. (3) The interruption of the limitation period shall apply to all economic operators or associations of economic operators which participated in the infringement. (4) In the event of interruption of the limitation period, a new limitation period of a similar duration shall begin to run on the day on which the Competition Authority adopts one of the measures referred to in paragraph 2. The limitation period shall expire at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period applicable to the infringement in question has elapsed without the Competition Authority having imposed one of the penalties provided for in this law. (5) The limitation period for the imposition of penalties shall be suspended for as long as the decision of the Competition Authority is the subject of proceedings before a court.’
12

The Competition and Consumer Authority brought an appeal against the decision of the markkinaoikeus (Market Court) before the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) seeking to have that decision set aside and the imposition of the proposed fine on Eltel. That authority argues that its application for a fine was received by the markkinaoikeus (Market Court) within the five-year period provided for in Paragraph 22 of the Law on restriction of competition. Until 7 January 2010, the date on which Fingrid paid Eltel the final instalment of the price for the construction works on the high-voltage line in question, the contract binding those companies was still in force and the illegal pricing resulting from the cartel was applied. Alternatively, that authority submits that the restriction on competition had ended at the earliest on 12 November 2009, when the construction works were completed. According to the Competition and Consumer Authority, a works contract awarded to an undertaking participating in a cartel has very tangible and long-term effects for the co-contractor, which is obliged pay a higher price than that which would have been paid in the absence of an agreement, since payment of that price is spread over several years as the project progresses. Therefore, each time an annual instalment is due for a portion of the work covered by the agreement, such a co-contractor suffers the harmful effects of the contract which directly impact its operating costs for the year in question and, consequently, its economic results and also, beyond that, its competitiveness on the relevant market. In the present case, as Fingrid paid a higher price for the construction of the high-voltage line in question than would have been the case in the absence of the cartel, that additional cost was also reflected in the electricity transmission price paid by the end users.
8

Article 4f of Directive 2005/36 as amended, entitled ‘Partial access’, is worded as follows: ‘1. The competent authority of the host Member State shall grant partial access, on a case-by-case basis, to a professional activity in its territory only when all the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the professional is fully qualified to exercise in the home Member State the professional activity for which partial access is sought in the host Member State; (b) differences between the professional activity legally exercised in the home Member State and the regulated profession in the host Member State as such are so large that the application of compensation measures would amount to requiring the applicant to complete the full programme of education and training required in the host Member State to have access to the full regulated profession in the host Member State; (c) the professional activity can objectively be separated from other activities falling under the regulated profession in the host Member State. For the purpose of point (c), the competent authority of the host Member State shall take into account whether the professional activity can be pursued autonomously in the home Member State. 2. Partial access may be rejected if such rejection is justified by overriding reasons of general interest, suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. 3. Applications for the purpose of establishment in a host Member State shall be examined in accordance with Chapters I and IV of Title III. 4. Applications for the purpose of providing temporary and occasional services in the host Member State concerning professional activities that have public health or safety implications shall be examined in accordance with Title II. 5. By derogation from the sixth subparagraph of Article 7(4) and Article 52(1), the professional activity shall be exercised under the professional title of the home Member State once partial access has been granted. The host Member State may require use of that professional title in the languages of the host Member State. Professionals benefiting from partial access shall clearly indicate to the service recipients the scope of their professional activities. 6. This Article shall not apply to professionals benefiting from automatic recognition of their professional qualifications under Chapters II, III and IIIa of Title III.’
36

In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 9 of [Directive 97/7] and Article 27 of [Directive 2011/83, read] in conjunction with Article 5(5) [of] and point 29 of Annex I to [Directive 2005/29], be interpreted as meaning that there is [inertia selling] of drinking water within the meaning of those provisions if the commercial practice of the drinking water company consists of the following: (i) the drinking water company is, by law, (a) exclusively authorised and obliged to supply drinking water within its distribution area by means of pipes, and is (b) obliged to make an offer to connect to the public drinking water supply those making a request to that end and to make an offer to supply drinking water; (ii) the drinking water company maintains the connection between the consumer’s home and the public drinking water supply as it existed before the consumer came into occupation of the dwelling, as a result of which there is pressure in the water pipes in the consumer’s dwelling, and as a result of which the consumer, after performing an active and conscious act – consisting of turning on the tap or an equivalent act – can consume drinking water if desired, even after the consumer has indicated that he or she does not wish to enter into a contract for the supply of drinking water; and (iii) the drinking water company charges costs in so far as the consumer has actually consumed drinking water by performing an active and conscious act, whereby the rates applied cover costs, are transparent and non-discriminatory and are monitored by the authorities? (2) Do Article 9 of the [Directive 97/7] and Article 27 of [Directive 2011/83, read] in conjunction with Article 5(5) [of] and point 29 of Annex I to [Directive 2005/29], preclude the assumption that a contract for the supply of drinking water is concluded between the drinking water company and the consumer if (i) the consumer, like the average consumer in the Netherlands, knows that there are costs associated with supplying drinking water, (ii) the consumer nevertheless consistently consumes drinking water over a long period of time, (iii) the consumer, even after receiving a welcome letter, invoices and reminders from the drinking water company, continues his or her water consumption, and (iv) the consumer, after judicial authorisation has been granted to terminate the dwelling’s drinking water connection, lets it be known that he or she does in fact wish to have a contract with the drinking water company?’
66

It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the questions referred is that Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system, during which the worker is required only to be contactable by telephone and able to return to his or her workplace, if necessary, within a time limit of one hour, while being able to stay in service accommodation made available to him or her by his or her employer at that workplace, without being required to remain there, does not constitute, in its entirety, working time within the meaning of that provision, unless an overall assessment of all the facts of the case, including the consequences of that time limit and, if appropriate, the average frequency of activity during that period, establishes that the constraints imposed on that worker during that period are such as to affect, objectively and very significantly, the latter’s ability freely to manage, during the same period, the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests. The limited nature of the opportunities to pursue leisure activities within the immediate vicinity of the place concerned is irrelevant for the purposes of that assessment.
15

Article 86 of the ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services), of 11 March 2004 (Dz. U. of 2018, item 2174), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Law on VAT’), provides: ‘1. In so far as the goods and services are used to conduct taxed transactions, the taxable person shall have the right to deduct the amount of input tax from the amount of tax due. … … 10. The right to deduct the amount of input tax from the amount of tax due shall arise when a return is drawn up for the period in which the tax liability arose in relation to the goods and services acquired or imported by the taxable person. 10b. The right to deduct the amount of input tax from the amount of tax due in the cases referred to in: … (2) paragraph (2)(4)(c) shall arise pursuant to paragraph 10, provided that the taxable person: (a) receives an invoice for the delivery of the goods which, for that person, constitutes an intra-Community acquisition of goods, in the three months following the end of the month during which the tax liability arose in relation to the acquired goods; (b) includes the amount of tax due on the intra-Community acquisition of goods in the tax declaration in which he is required to pay that tax, within three months following the end of the month in which the tax liability arose in relation to the acquired goods, … 10i. Where the taxable person includes the amount of tax due in the tax declaration in which he is required to pay that tax at a date subsequent to that laid down in paragraph 10b)(2)(b) and (3), the taxable person may increase the amount of input tax accordingly in the return for the accounting period in respect of which the period for submitting a tax declaration has not yet expired. … 13. Where the taxable person has not deducted the amount of input tax from the amount of tax due within the periods referred to in paragraphs 10, 10d, 10e and 11, he may reduce the amount of the tax due by adjusting the tax declaration for the period in which the right to deduct the amount of tax due arose, but must do so within five years from the beginning of the year in which the right to deduct the amount of tax due arose, subject to paragraph 13a. 13a. Where the taxable person, for the purposes of an intra-Community acquisition of goods or supply of goods or services, in respect of which, under Article 17, the taxable person is the purchaser of goods and services, has not deducted the amount of input tax from the amount of tax due within the periods referred to in paragraphs 10 and 11, he may deduct the amount of tax due by adjusting the tax declaration for the period in which the right to deduct the tax due arose, but must do so within five years from the end of the year in which the right to deduct arose.’
3

Recitals 7, 39 to 42 and 47 of Directive 96/9 state: ‘(7) Whereas the making of databases requires the investment of considerable human, technical and financial resources while such databases can be copied or accessed at a fraction of the cost needed to design them independently; … (39) Whereas, in addition to aiming to protect the copyright in the original selection or arrangement of the contents of a database, this Directive seeks to safeguard the position of makers of databases against misappropriation of the results of the financial and professional investment made in obtaining and collection the contents by protecting the whole or substantial parts of a database against certain acts by a user or competitor; (40) Whereas the object of this sui generis right is to ensure protection of any investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of a database for the limited duration of the right; whereas such investment may consist in the deployment of financial resources and/or the expending of time, effort and energy; (41) Whereas the objective of the sui generis right is to give the maker of a database the option of preventing the unauthorised extraction and/or re-utilisation of all or a substantial part of the contents of that database; whereas the maker of a database is the person who takes the initiative and the risk of investing; whereas this excludes subcontractors in particular from the definition of maker; (42) Whereas the special right to prevent unauthorised extraction and/or [re-utilisation] relates to acts by the user which go beyond his legitimate rights and thereby harm the investment; whereas the right to prohibit extraction and/or [re-utilisation] of all or a substantial part of the contents relates not only to the manufacture of a parasitical competing product but also to any user who, through his acts, causes significant detriment, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, to the investment; … (47) Whereas, in the interests of competition between suppliers of information products and services, protection by the sui generis right must not be afforded in such a way as to facilitate abuses of a dominant position, in particular as regards the creation and [distribution] of new products and services which have an intellectual, documentary, technical, economic or commercial added value; whereas, therefore, the provisions of this Directive are without prejudice to the application of [EU] or national competition rules;’