ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3

Article 4 of Directive 2011/95, headed ‘Assessment of facts and circumstances’, provides: ‘1. Member States may consider it the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all the elements needed to substantiate the application for international protection. In cooperation with the applicant, it is the duty of the Member State to assess the relevant elements of the application. 2. The elements referred to in paragraph 1 consist of the applicant’s statements and all the documentation at the applicant’s disposal regarding the applicant’s age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection. 3. The assessment of an application for international protection is to be carried out on an individual basis and includes taking into account: … (b) the relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant including information on whether the applicant has been or may be subject to persecution or serious harm; … 5. Where Member States apply the principle according to which it is the duty of the applicant to substantiate the application for international protection and where aspects of the applicant’s statements are not supported by documentary or other evidence, those aspects shall not need confirmation when the following conditions are met: (a) the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his application; (b) all relevant elements at the applicant’s disposal have been submitted, and a satisfactory explanation has been given regarding any lack of other relevant elements; (c) the applicant’s statements are found to be coherent and plausible and do not run counter to available specific and general information relevant to the applicant’s case; (d) the applicant has applied for international protection at the earliest possible time, unless the applicant can demonstrate good reason for not having done so; and (e) the general credibility of the applicant has been established.’
5

Article 3 of that directive, entitled ‘Terms and conditions of employment’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that, whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship, the undertakings referred to in Article 1(1) guarantee workers posted to their territory the terms and conditions of employment covering the following matters which, in the Member State where the work is carried out, are laid down: – by law, regulation or administrative provision, and/or – by collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable within the meaning of paragraph 8, insofar as they concern the activities referred to in the Annex: … (c) the minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates; this point does not apply to supplementary occupational retirement pension schemes; … For the purposes of this Directive, the concept of minimum rates of pay referred to in paragraph 1(c) is defined by the national law and/or practice of the Member State to whose territory the worker is posted. … 7. Paragraphs 1 to 6 shall not prevent application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers. Allowances specific to the posting shall be considered to be part of the minimum wage, unless they are paid in reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred on account of the posting, such as expenditure on travel, board and lodging. …’
5

Article 70 of Regulation No 806/2014, entitled ‘Ex-ante contributions’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof: ‘1. The individual contribution of each institution shall be raised at least annually and shall be calculated pro-rata to the amount of its liabilities (excluding own funds) less covered deposits, with respect to the aggregate liabilities (excluding own funds) less covered deposits, of all of the institutions authorised in the territories of all of the participating Member States. 2. Each year, the Board shall, after consulting the [European Central Bank (ECB)] or the national competent authority and in close cooperation with the national resolution authorities, calculate the individual contributions to ensure that the contributions due by all of the institutions authorised in the territories of all of the participating Member States shall not exceed 12.5% of the target level. Each year the calculation of the contributions for individual institutions shall be based on: (a) a flat contribution, that is pro-rata based on the amount of an institution’s liabilities excluding own funds and covered deposits, with respect to the total liabilities, excluding own funds and covered deposits, of all of the institutions authorised in the territories of the participating Member States; and (b) a risk-adjusted contribution, that shall be based on the criteria laid down in Article 103(7) of [Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190)], taking into account the principle of proportionality, without creating distortions between banking sector structures of the Member States. The relation between the flat contribution and the risk-adjusted contributions shall take into account a balanced distribution of contributions across different types of banks. In any case, the aggregate amount of individual contributions by all of the institutions authorised in the territories of all of the participating Member States, calculated under points (a) and (b), shall not exceed annually the 12.5% of the target level.’
9

Article 24 of that regulation, headed ‘No right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence’, provides: ‘1. A person who receives a pension or pensions under the legislation of one or more Member States and who is not entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself/herself and the members of his/her family, in so far as he/she would be entitled thereto under the legislation of the Member State or of at least one of the Member States competent in respect of his/her pensions, if he/she resided in that Member State. The benefits in kind shall be provided at the expense of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence, as though the person concerned were entitled to a pension and benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State. 2. In the cases covered by paragraph 1, the cost of benefits in kind shall be borne by the institution as determined in accordance with the following rules: (a) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of a single Member State, the cost shall be borne by the competent institution of that Member State; (b) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of two or more Member States, the cost thereof shall be borne by the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation the person has been subject for the longest period of time; should the application of this rule result in several institutions being responsible for the cost of benefits, the cost shall be borne by the institution applying the legislation to which the pensioner was last subject.’
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Assessment of validity – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Question concerning the validity of the exclusion clause for survivors' benefits provided for in that directive – Survivor’s pension based on a de facto partnership falling outside the scope of that directive notwithstanding the existence of that clause – Inadmissibility

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/54, Art. 7(1)(a); Council Directive 79/7, Arts 3(1) and (2) and 4(1))

(see paras 41-54, operative part 1)
Appeal – Grounds – Plea raised for the first time in the context of the appeal – Argument constituting an additional argument supplementing a plea put forward at first instance and not changing the subject matter of the dispute – Admissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 127)

(see paras 43, 44)
3.

Where no provision is made in the legislation of the issuing Member State for an action to be brought before a court for the purpose of obtaining review of the conditions under which a European arrest warrant was issued by an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as permitting the national court hearing an action seeking to challenge the lawfulness of the continued pre-trial detention of a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued on the basis of a national measure that cannot be regarded as a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, and in the context of which a plea in law is raised alleging that that European arrest warrant is invalid in the light of EU law, to find that it has jurisdiction to conduct such a review of validity. Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as not requiring the effect of a finding by the national court that the European arrest warrant at issue has been issued in breach of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, in so far as it is not based on a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of that provision, to be the release of the person placed in pre-trial detention following his or her surrender by the executing Member State to the issuing Member State. It is therefore for the referring court to decide, in accordance with its national law, what consequences the absence of such a national measure, as a legal basis for the European arrest warrant at issue, may have on deciding whether or not to keep the accused person in pre-trial detention.
2.

Actions brought by officials – Actions for damages – Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment – Limits – Damages claim aimed at circumventing the inadmissibility of an action for annulment – Inadmissibility – Action for damages seeking compensation for the same damage as that concerned by a request for assistance already rejected by the administration – Rejection decision not challenged in due time – Assessment of admissibility – Comparison of the outcomes sought by the action for damages and the request for assistance (Art. 268 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 24, 90 and 91) (see paras 58-65)
26

As regards, next, the alleged discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, the referring court states that the oöADG transposes into Austrian law, in so far as relevant for the purposes of the case in the main proceedings, Directive 2000/43, although the oöADG refers to ‘ethnicity’. Noting that a difference in treatment based on the criterion of status as a third-country national does not, in principle and as such, come within the scope of that directive in accordance with Article 3(2) thereof, it asks whether a criterion of nationality may nevertheless, under certain conditions, constitute ‘indirect discrimination’ based on ethnic origin within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43. It observes, in this regard, that it is required to deliver a decision on a rule which requires the possession of a basic command of German, proof of which must be provided in a specified form. In the event that it is necessary to assess whether the oöWFG gives rise to indirect discrimination, the referring court adds that it would need to examine whether such discrimination is justified. The purpose of Paragraph 6(9) and (11) of the oöWFG is to provide for more restricted access to housing assistance for third-country nationals and the ground concerning the possession of a basic command of German is that that level of proficiency is an important element for purposes of the social integration of the person concerned. According to the referring court, it is worth considering the requirement to provide proof of such a level of proficiency in the light of the other eligibility conditions for housing assistance and of the requirements that the third-country national concerned must satisfy in order to obtain ‘long-term resident status’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2003/109.
12

Article 52 of Directive 2004/18, which is entitled ‘Official lists of approved economic operators and certification by bodies established under public or private law’, provides: ‘1. Member States may introduce either official lists of approved contractors, suppliers or service providers or certification by certification bodies established in public or private law. Member States shall adapt the conditions for registration on these lists and for the issue of certificates by certification bodies to the provisions of Article 45(1), Article 45(2)(a) to (d) and (g), [Article] 46, Article 47(1), (4) and (5), Article 48(1), (2), (5) and (6), Article 49 and, where appropriate, Article 50. … 2. Economic operators registered on the official lists or having a certificate may, for each contract, submit to the contracting authority a certificate of registration issued by the competent authority or the certificate issued by the competent certification body. The certificates shall state the references which enabled them to be registered in the list/to obtain certification and the classification given in that list. 3. Certified registration on official lists by the competent bodies or a certificate issued by the certification body shall not, for the purposes of the contracting authorities of other Member States, constitute a presumption of suitability except as regards [Article] 45(1) and (2)(a) to (d) and (g), Article 46, Article 47(1)(b) and (c), and Article 48(2)(a)(i), (b), (e), (g) and (h) in the case of contractors, (2)(a)(ii), (b), (c), (d) and (j) in the case of suppliers and [(2)](a)(ii) and (c) to (i) in the case of service providers. 4. Information which can be deduced from registration on official lists or certification may not be questioned without justification. With regard to the payment of social security contributions and taxes, an additional certificate may be required of any registered economic operator whenever a contract is offered. The contracting authorities of other Member States shall apply paragraph 3 and the first subparagraph of this paragraph only in favour of economic operators established in the Member State holding the official list. 5. For any registration of economic operators of other Member States in an official list or for their certification by the bodies referred to in paragraph 1, no further proof or statements can be required other than those requested of national economic operators and, in any event, only those provided for under Articles 45 to 49 and, where appropriate, Article 50. However, economic operators from other Member States may not be obliged to undergo such registration or certification in order to participate in a public contract. The contracting authorities shall recognise equivalent certificates from bodies established in other Member States. They shall also accept other equivalent means of proof. 6. Economic operators may ask at any time to be registered in an official list or for a certificate to be issued. They must be informed within a reasonably short period of time of the decision of the authority drawing up the list or of the competent certification body. …’
14

In those circumstances, the Sofiyski Rayonen sad (Sofia District Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 20(2)(a) [TFEU], in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the [Charter], the principles of non-discrimination and of the equivalence of procedural measures in national judicial proceedings and Article 1[(1)](a) of Regulation [No 1206/2001] be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of the court seised provides that the latter is to obtain, of its own motion, information regarding the defendant’s address in its own State and it is established that the defendant is in another State of the European Union, the national court seised is obliged to obtain information regarding the defendant’s address from the competent authorities of the State in which he or she resides? (2) Must Article 5(1) of Regulation [No 1215/2012], in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights arising from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the habitual residence of a debtor as a condition required under national law for the conduct of unilateral formal proceedings in which evidence is not taken, such as order for payment procedures, the national court is obliged to interpret any reasonable suspicion that the debtor is habitually resident in another State of the European Union as a lack of a legal basis for issuing an order for payment or as a basis for the order for payment not acquiring the force of res judicata? (3) Must Article 5(1) of Regulation [No 1215/2012], in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights deriving from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that a national court, which, after having issued an order for payment against a particular debtor, has established that that debtor is unlikely to be habitually resident in the State of the court and, provided that this constitutes an obstacle to the issuing of an order for payment against such a debtor under national law, is obliged to annul, of its own motion, the order for payment issued, despite the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect? (4) If the third question is answered in the negative, are the provisions referred to in that question to be interpreted as obliging the national court to annul the order for payment issued where it has carried out a check and established with certainty that the debtor is not habitually resident in the State of the court seised?’
8

Entitled ‘Farm and business development’, Article 19 of that regulation provides: ‘1. Support under this measure shall cover: (a) business start-up aid for: (i) young farmers; … (iii) the development of small farms; … 2. Support under point (a)(i) of paragraph 1 shall be granted to young farmers. … Support under point (a)(iii) of paragraph 1 shall be granted to small farms as defined by Member States. … 4. Support under point (a) of paragraph 1 shall be conditional on the submission of a business plan. Implementation of the business plan must start within nine months from the date of the decision granting the aid. For young farmers receiving support under point (a)(i) of paragraph 1, the business plan shall provide that the young farmer complies with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, regarding active farmers within 18 months from the date of setting up. Member States shall define upper and lower thresholds for allowing agricultural holdings access to support under points (a)(i) and (a)(iii) of paragraph 1. The lower threshold for support under point (a)(i) of paragraph 1 shall be higher than the upper threshold for support under point (a)(iii) of paragraph 1. Support shall be limited to holdings coming under the definition of micro- and small enterprises. 5. Support under point (a) of paragraph 1 shall be paid in at least two instalments over a period of maximum five years. Instalments may be degressive. The payment of the last instalment, under points (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of paragraph 1 shall be conditional upon the correct implementation of the business plan. 6. The maximum amount of support under point (a) of paragraph 1 is laid down in Annex II. Member States shall define the amount of support under points (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of paragraph 1 also taking into account the socio-economic situation of the programme area. …’
24

In those circumstances the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 15(1)(c) of the Lugano [II] Convention to be interpreted as meaning that the “pursuit” of a professional or commercial activity in the State bound by [that convention] and in which the consumer is domiciled presupposes that the other party was already engaged in cross-border activity at the time when the contract was initiated and concluded or does that provision also apply for the purpose of determining the court having jurisdiction to hear proceedings where the parties were domiciled within the meaning of Articles 59 and 60 of the Lugano [II] Convention in the same State bound by [that convention] at the time when the contract was concluded and a foreign element to the legal relationship arose only subsequently because the consumer relocated at a later date to another State bound by [that convention]? (2) If cross-border activity at the time when the contract was concluded is not necessary: Does Article 15(1)(c) of the Lugano [II] Convention, read in conjunction with Article 16(2) thereof, generally preclude determination of the court having jurisdiction in accordance with Article 5(1) of [that convention] in the case where the consumer relocated to another State bound by the [Lugano II] Convention between the time when the contract was concluded and the time when the proceedings were brought, or is it also necessary for the professional or commercial activities of the other party to be pursued in or directed to the new State of domicile and for the contract to come within the scope of such activities?’