ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The last sentence of Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations must be interpreted as applying to a commission contract for the carriage of goods solely when the main purpose of the contract consists in the actual transport of the goods concerned, which it is for the referring court to verify.

The last sentence of Article 4(4) of that convention allows other contracts to be equated with contracts for the carriage of goods, since one of the purposes of that provision is to extend the application of the second sentence of Article 4(4) to contracts which, despite being categorised as contracts other than a contract for the carriage of goods under national law, have as their principal purpose the carriage of goods. In order to ascertain that purpose, it is necessary to take into consideration the objective of the contractual relationship and, consequently, all the obligations of the party who effects the performance which is characteristic of the contract.

The same holds true for a commission contract for the carriage of goods which is a separate contract the characteristic performance of which consists in organising the carriage of goods. As the carriage of goods per se is not its principal purpose, a commission contract for the carriage of goods cannot be considered to be a contract for the carriage of goods.

However, taking account of the purpose of the contractual relationship, the actual performance effected and all of the obligations of the party who must effect the characteristic performance, and not the parties’ categorisation of the contract, a commission contract for the carriage of goods may turn out to relate to the specific nature of a contract for the carriage of goods if its principal purpose is the transport as such of the goods..

It is for the referring court, in examining the overall circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, namely the contractual stipulations reflecting the economic and commercial reality of the relations existing between the parties and the purpose of Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention, to ascertain whether and to what extent the commission contract for the carriage of goods in question has as its principal purpose the actual carriage of the goods concerned.

(see paras 26-28, 31, 32, operative part 1)
Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State which makes the award of an old-age pension subject to the prior condition of discontinuing the payment of social security contributions relating to activities carried out in another Member State.

Such a discontinuance in the payment of contributions may be difficult, even impossible, for a worker exercising his freedom of movement or of establishment by carrying out an occupational activity as an employee or as a self-employed worker in another Member State. In particular, the administrative steps liable to flow from that discontinuance in another Member State could lead or even require such a worker to cease his occupational activity for an unpredictable period of time in order to be granted an old-age pension pursuant to that legislation.

That discontinuance could call into question the pursuit, by a self-employed person, of his occupational activity and make his professional circumstances precarious given that, following the discontinuance, he would have no guarantee of being able to pursue his employment or of finding alternative employment.

That discontinuance could also have, following that worker’s return to work, negative consequences on pay, career progression and prospects of promotion, such as for example, a loss of the rights to paid leave and a reduction in grade or seniority.

It follows that such national legislation is liable to prevent or dissuade people who are entitled to an old-age pension under legislation of the Member State at issue from carrying out an occupational activity in another Member State and therefore constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement and in particular the freedom of establishment referred to in Article 49 TFEU.

Moreover, the mere formal requirement of discontinuance of that activity is not justified by an objective in the public interest whose achievement it is capable of ensuring, in as much as it relates, according to the Member State at issue, to a purpose which is non-existent, irrelevant and illogical, such that the requirement was repealed in the interim. There is no direct and necessary link between the payment of such a pension under the law of the relevant Member State and the termination of gainful occupational activities, given that an insured person retained the right to carry out an activity after the award of an old-age pension.

(see paras 42-45, 47-50, operative part 1)
The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as extending to the right of an illegally staying third-country national to express, before the adoption of a return decision concerning him, his point of view on the legality of his stay, on the possible application of Articles 5 and 6(2) to (5) of that directive and on the detailed arrangements for his return.

However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a competent national authority to warn the third-country national, prior to the interview arranged with a view to that adoption, that it is contemplating adopting a return decision with respect to him, or to disclose to him the information on which it intends to rely as justification for that decision, or to allow him a period of reflection before seeking his observations, provided that the third-country national has the opportunity effectively to present his point of view on the subject of the illegality of his stay and the reasons which might, under national law, justify that authority refraining from adopting a return decision.

The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that an illegally staying third-country national may have recourse, prior to the adoption by the competent national authority of a return decision concerning him, to a legal adviser in order to have the benefit of the latter’s assistance when he is heard by that authority, provided that the exercise of that right does not affect the due progress of the return procedure and does not undermine the effective implementation of Directive 2008/115.

However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require Member States to bear the costs of that assistance by providing free legal aid.

(see paras 68-71, operative part)
Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products must be interpreted as meaning that the use of one of the substances referred to is legally required only when a provision of EU law or a provision of national law compatible therewith directly requires that that substance be added to a foodstuff in order for that foodstuff to be placed on the market. The use of such a substance is not legally required within the meaning of that provision where a foodstuff is marketed as a food supplement, with a nutrition or health claim or as a foodstuff for a particular nutritional use, although that implies that, in order to comply with the provisions governing the incorporation of substances into foodstuffs, included in:

– Directive 2002/46 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008;

– Regulation No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods and Regulation No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health; and

– Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and Regulation No 953/2009 on substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses;

that foodstuff must contain a determined quantity of the substance in question.

It is for economic operators to determine the composition of their products and to decide how they want to portray them for marketing purposes. If they wish to market those products as a food supplement coming under Directive 2002/46, with nutrition or health claims as covered by Regulations Nos 1924/2006 and 432/2012, or as a foodstuff intended for a particular nutritional use coming within the scope of Directive 2009/39 and Regulation No 953/2009, they must fulfil the relevant obligations laid down by the applicable EU rules, which may mean that the product may not be permitted to be marketed as organic. EU law does not guarantee that an economic operator will be allowed to market its products using any terms it finds to be most advantageous for promoting them.

(see paras 46, 51, operative part)
Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services seeks to ensure that the rules of the host Member State for minimum protection as regards the terms and conditions of employment relating to the matters mentioned in Article 3(1) thereof and, as the case may be, those specified by the Member States in accordance with Article 3(10) thereof will be applied to posted workers while they work on a temporary basis in the territory of that host Member State. Measures monitoring compliance with rules for minimum protection do not fall within the scope of Directive 96/71 and that they are not harmonised at EU level and may, therefore, be freely defined by the Member States, in compliance with the Treaty and the general principles of EU law.

Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, under which the recipient of services performed by workers posted by a service provider established in another Member State is required to declare to the competent authorities, before those workers begin to work, the data identifying those workers who are unable to submit proof of the declaration which their employer should have made to the competent authorities of that host Member State prior to the commencement of that provision of services, since such legislation is capable of being justified as safeguarding an overriding ground of public interest, such as the protection of workers or the combating of social security fraud, on condition that it is established that that legislation is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the legitimate objective or objectives pursued and that it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them, these being matters for the referring court to determine.

Such national legislation, in so far as it involves monitoring the obligation to make a declaration imposed on the employer of workers posted temporarily may be regarded as being the corollary of such an obligation and as necessary in order to attain the objectives pursued by the cross-border information system for the investigation of migration by the social security administration (‘the Limosa system’).

(see paras 72, 75, operative part)
Case C‑623/13

Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

v

Gérard de Ruyter

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4 — Substantive scope — Levies on income from assets — General social contribution — Social debt repayment contribution — Social levy — Additional contribution to the social levy — Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes — Direct and sufficiently relevant link with some branches of social security’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 February 2015

Social security — Migrant workers — Regulation No 1408/71 — Substantive scope — Levy on income from assets — Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes — Included — Professional activities of the taxable persons — No effect

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 118/97 and No 1606/98, Art. 4)

Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97 and as amended by Regulation No 1606/98, must be interpreted as meaning that levies on income from assets have, when they contribute to the financing of compulsory social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation 1408/71 and thus fall within the scope of the regulation, even though those levies are imposed on the income from assets of taxable persons, irrespective of the pursuit by them of any professional activity.

(see para. 42, operative part)

Case C‑623/13

Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

v

Gérard de Ruyter

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4 — Substantive scope — Levies on income from assets — General social contribution — Social debt repayment contribution — Social levy — Additional contribution to the social levy — Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes — Direct and sufficiently relevant link with some branches of social security’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 February 2015

Social security — Migrant workers — Regulation No 1408/71 — Substantive scope — Levy on income from assets — Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes — Included — Professional activities of the taxable persons — No effect

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 118/97 and No 1606/98, Art. 4)

Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97 and as amended by Regulation No 1606/98, must be interpreted as meaning that levies on income from assets have, when they contribute to the financing of compulsory social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation 1408/71 and thus fall within the scope of the regulation, even though those levies are imposed on the income from assets of taxable persons, irrespective of the pursuit by them of any professional activity.

(see para. 42, operative part)
In particular, procedural rules are generally taken to apply from the date on which they enter into force, as opposed to substantive rules, which are usually interpreted as applying to situations existing before their entry into force only in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, their objectives or their general scheme that such an effect must be given to them.

A new rule of law applies from the entry into force of the act introducing it, and, while it does not apply to legal situations that have arisen and become definitive under the old law, it does apply to their future effects, and to new legal situations. It is otherwise, subject to the principle of the non-retroactivity of legal acts, only if the new rule is accompanied by special provisions which specifically lay down its conditions of temporal application.

In the absence of special provisions specifically determining the conditions of its temporal application, Directive 2009/73 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55 must apply to procedures that were ongoing on the date of its entry into force.

Directive 2009/73 does not create a new set of rules but is a direct continuation of Directive 2003/55 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30, and leaves unchanged the content of the substantive provisions of that directive, in particular the substantive provisions on the material conditions for the grant of an exemption in Article 22(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/55 and Article 36(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/73.

In those circumstances, since the provisions in force on the date of adoption of a Commission decision on an exemption for an underground gas storage facility were not those of Directive 2003/55 but those of Directive 2009/73, it follows that the Commission did not retroactively apply the provisions of Directive 2009/73 but adopted that decision on the basis of the provision then in force.

(see paras 37, 41, 42, 45)
Regulation No 2078/92 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside must be interpreted as meaning that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set aside scheme for agricultural land provided for in Article 2(1)(f) thereof.

As follows from the second, tenth and twelfth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2078/92, it had instituted a Community aid scheme the main objective of which was to regulate the production of agricultural products, such that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set aside scheme for agricultural land. Accordingly, the achievement of the agri-environmental objectives of that regulation is not alone sufficient to justify the aid provided for by that regulation being granted to persons other than farmers.

(see paras 37, 38, 44, 45, operative part)
Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Regulation No 279/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant wishing to benefit from the general system for recognition of evidence of training laid down in Chapter I of Title III of that directive must, in addition to holding formal qualifications not listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1, thereto, also establish the existence of ‘specific and exceptional reasons’.

Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Regulation No 279/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘specific and exceptional reasons’, within the meaning of that provision, refers to the circumstances which gave rise to the fact that the applicant does not hold a formal qualification listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1, to that directive, it being understood that the applicant cannot rely on the fact that he holds professional qualifications which give him access, in his home Member State, to a profession other than that which he wishes to pursue in the host Member State.

In addition, ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ may cover both the circumstances relating to institutional and structural obstacles resulting from the particular situation in the Member State concerned and circumstances related to the applicant’s personal situation.

(see paras 43, 45, operative part 2)
The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as not precluding a finding that the evaluation of the tenders is unlawful solely on the grounds that the tenderer has had significant connections with experts appointed by the contracting authority who evaluated the tenders. The contracting authority is, at all events, required to determine the existence of possible conflicts of interests and to take appropriate measures in order to prevent and detect conflicts of interests and remedy them. In the context of the examination of an action for annulment of an award decision on the ground that the experts were biased, the unsuccessful tenderer may not be required to provide tangible proof of the experts’ bias. It is, in principle, a matter of national law to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the competent administrative and judicial control authorities must take account of the fact that possible bias on the part of experts has had an effect on the decision to award the contract.

A conflict of interests entails the risk that the contracting authority may choose to be guided by considerations unrelated to the contract in question and that on account of that fact alone preference may be given to a tenderer. Such a conflict of interests is thus liable to constitute an infringement of Article 2 of Directive 2004/18. In that regard, the fact that the contracting authority appointed experts acting on its mandate in order to evaluate the tenders submitted does not relieve that authority of its responsibility to comply with the requirements of EU law. The finding of bias on the part of an expert requires in particular the assessment of facts and evidence that comes within the competence of the contracting authorities and the administrative or judicial control authorities.

Concerning the rules on evidence in that regard, in accordance with Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, the contracting authorities are to treat economic operators equally and non-discriminatorily and to act in a transparent way. It follows that they are assigned an active role in the application of those principles of public procurement.

Thus, if the unsuccessful tenderer presents objective evidence calling into question the impartiality of one of the contracting authority’s experts, it is for that contracting authority to examine all the relevant circumstances having led to the adoption of the decision relating to the award of the contract in order to prevent and detect conflicts of interests and remedy them, including, where appropriate, requesting the parties to provide certain information and evidence.

(see paras 35-37, 42, 44, 47 operative part 1)