ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7

The operative part of the Sernam 2 Decision is worded as follows: ‘Article 1 1. The State aid of EUR 503 million for … Sernam … approved in May 2001 is compatible with the common market under the conditions laid down in Articles 3 and 4. 2. The State aid of EUR 41 million provided by France to … Sernam … is incompatible with the common market. Article 2 1. [The French Republic] shall take all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Article 1(2) that has already been unlawfully placed at the beneficiary’s disposal. 2. Recovery shall take place immediately in accordance with the procedures of national law to the extent that these procedures permit the immediate and effective implementation of this Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the day on which the aid was placed at the beneficiary’s disposal to the day on which the aid is recovered. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for the calculation of the subsidy equivalent for aid granted for regional purposes. Article 3 1. Subject to paragraph 2, the following conditions shall be complied with: (a) Sernam may develop only its activities to carry mail by railway in accordance with the Train Bloc Express (TBE) concept. In this regard, SNCF guarantees that it will offer to any other operator who so requests the same conditions as those granted to Sernam to develop TBE freight transport by rail. (b) In return, Sernam shall, in the next two years as from the day on which this Decision is notified, fully replace its own road transport resources and services by road transport resources and services of one or more companies that are legally and economically independent of SNCF and are chosen in accordance with an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure. Sernam’s own road transport resources and services means all of the road resources — i.e. road transport vehicles — of the Sernam company of which it has full ownership or which it leases or rents. The companies that take over Sernam’s road activities shall perform the road transport services using their own resources. 2. In the event that Sernam sells its assets en bloc by 30 June 2005 at market price through a transparent and open procedure to a company that has no legal link with SNCF, the conditions of paragraph 1 shall not be applicable. Article 4 Any partial or full sale of Sernam shall be effected at market price and through a transparent procedure that is open to all its competitors. Under these conditions, … Sernam … shall, if it continues to exist, be responsible for paying back the aid of EUR 41 million.’ Article 5 Within two months of the date on which this Decision is notified, [the French Republic] shall inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with it. Article 6 This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.’
5

Article 17(1) to (3) of that directive provides: ‘1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the commercial agent is, after termination of the agency contract, indemnified in accordance with paragraph 2 or compensated for damage in accordance with paragraph 3. (a) The commercial agent shall be entitled to an indemnity if and to the extent that: – he has brought the principal new customers or has significantly increased the volume of business with existing customers and the principal continues to derive substantial benefits from the business with such customers, and – the payment of this indemnity is equitable having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, the commission lost by the commercial agent on the business transacted with such customers. … (b) The amount of the indemnity may not exceed a figure equivalent to an indemnity for one year calculated from the commercial agent’s average annual remuneration over the preceding five years and if the contract goes back less than five years the indemnity shall be calculated on the average for the period in question; (c) The grant of such an indemnity shall not prevent the commercial agent from seeking damages. 3. The commercial agent shall be entitled to compensation for the damage he suffers as a result of the termination of his relations with the principal. Such damage shall be deemed to occur particularly when the termination takes place in circumstances: – depriving the commercial agent of the commission which proper performance of the agency contract would have procured him whilst providing the principal with substantial benefits linked to the commercial agent’s activities, – and/or which have not enabled the commercial agent to amortise the costs and expenses that he had incurred for the performance of the agency contract on the principal’s advice.’
24

In those circumstances, the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Articles 184 to 186 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the deduction adjustment mechanism provided for in the VAT Directive is not applicable in cases where an initial deduction could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was a VAT-exempt transaction relating to the supply of land? (2) Is the answer to the first question affected by the fact that (1) the VAT on the purchase price of the plots of land was initially deducted because of the tax authority’s practice under which the supply in question was incorrectly regarded as being a supply of building land subject to VAT, as provided for in Article 12(1)(b) of the VAT Directive; and/or (2) after the initial deduction made by the purchaser, the supplier of the land issued a VAT credit note to the purchaser adjusting the amount of VAT shown on the initial invoice? (3) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 184 and/or 185 of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where an initial deduction could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was exempt from VAT, the taxable person’s obligation to adjust that deduction must be considered to have arisen immediately or only when it became known that the initial deduction could not have been made? (4) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the VAT Directive, and in particular Articles 179, 184 to 186 and 250 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the adjusted amounts of deductible input VAT must be deducted in the tax period in which the taxable person’s obligation and/or right to adjust the initial deduction arose?’
13

Paragraph 14c of the UStG, entitled ‘Incorrectly or unduly stated tax’, provides: ‘(1) If a trader has, in an invoice for a supply of goods or services, stated separately a higher amount of tax than is payable under this Law in respect of the transaction concerned (incorrectly stated tax), he shall also be liable to pay the additional amount. If he adjusts the amount of tax vis-à-vis the recipient of the supply, Paragraph 17(1) shall apply by analogy. … (2) Where a person states an amount of tax separately in an invoice, and he is not entitled to do so (unduly stated tax), he shall be liable to pay the amount stated. The same applies where a person makes a deduction as a trader providing a service would and states separately an amount of tax when he is not a trader or is not supplying goods or services. The amount of tax payable under the first and second sentences may be adjusted in so far as this does not affect tax revenue. An adjustment does not affect tax revenue where the recipient of the invoice does not deduct the input tax or where the deducted input tax has been refunded to the tax authorities. An adjustment of the amount of tax payable must be requested, clearly and in writing, from the Tax Office and carried out, once approved by that office, within the framework of applying Paragraph 17(1) by analogy in respect of the tax period during which the conditions set out in the fourth sentence were satisfied.’
15

Second, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to commercialisation of repackaged pharmaceutical products under Article 13(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, which is a derogation from the free movement of goods, cannot, however, be accepted if the proprietor’s exercise of that right constitutes a disguised restriction on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 36 TFEU (judgments of 11 July 1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others, C‑427/93, C‑429/93 and C‑436/93, EU:C:1996:282, and of 26 April 2007, Boehringer Ingelheim and Others, C‑348/04, EU:C:2007:249). It follows that the proprietor of a mark may oppose a modification which involves any repackaging of a pharmaceutical product bearing its mark, which, by its very nature, creates real risks for the guarantee of origin of the pharmaceutical product, unless five conditions are met, namely: – it is established that the use of the trade mark rights by the proprietor thereof to oppose the marketing of the relabelled products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; – it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging; – the new packaging states clearly who repackaged the product and the name of the manufacturer; – the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its owner; thus, the packaging must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and – the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on demand, supplies him with a specimen of the repackaged product.
8

Article 6 of that directive, headed ‘Consultations’, provides: ‘1. The draft plan or programme and the environmental report prepared in accordance with Article 5 shall be made available to the authorities referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article and the public. 2. The authorities referred to in paragraph 3 and the public referred to in paragraph 4 shall be given an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan or programme and the accompanying environmental report before the adoption of the plan or programme or its submission to the legislative procedure. 3. Member States shall designate the authorities to be consulted which, by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes. 4. Member States shall identify the public for the purposes of paragraph 2, including the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the decision-making subject to this Directive, including relevant non-governmental organisations, such as those promoting environmental protection and other organisations concerned. 5. The detailed arrangements for the information and consultation of the authorities and the public shall be determined by the Member States.’
66

As regards the seriousness of an infringement which has been established, the Commission emphasises, in the first place, the importance of the EU rules which have been infringed, namely those of Directive 1999/31 and, in the second place, the consequences of that infringement on general and individual interests, such as, inter alia, the protection of human health and the environment. In that regard, it submits that that protection requires landfilled waste not to present a risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, bearing that aim in mind, in accordance with Article 14 of that directive, a definite decision of the competent authorities is essential for the continued operation or closure of existing landfill sites. Similarly, Article 13 of the directive lays down requirements for landfill site closure and after-care procedures. In the third place, the Commission proposes, however, that it be taken into account that only one landfill site is in question and the relevant geographical area is limited to the vicinity of the site in question and that landfill waste at that site has been suspended since 30 December 2013. As a mitigating factor, regard should also be had to the measures which the Slovak Republic has taken to comply with the judgment in Case C‑331/11, even if those measures have been insufficient.
28

Article 14 of that directive, which also appears in Chapter IV thereof, is entitled ‘Revocation of, ending of or refusal to renew refugee status’ and provides: ‘1. Concerning applications for international protection filed after the entry into force of [Directive 2004/83], Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee status of a third-country national or a stateless person granted by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body if he or she has ceased to be a refugee in accordance with Article 11. … 3. Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee status of a third-country national or a stateless person if, after he or she has been granted refugee status, it is established by the Member State concerned that: (a) he or she should have been or is excluded from being a refugee in accordance with Article 12; (b) his or her misrepresentation or omission of facts, including the use of false documents, was decisive for the granting of refugee status. 4. Member States may revoke, end or refuse to renew the status granted to a refugee by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body, when: (a) there are reasonable grounds for regarding him or her as a danger to the security of the Member State in which he or she is present; (b) he or she, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that Member State.’ 5. In situations described in paragraph 4, Member States may decide not to grant status to a refugee, where such a decision has not yet been taken. 6. Persons to whom paragraphs 4 or 5 apply are entitled to rights set out in or similar to those set out in Articles 3, 4, 16, 22, 31, 32 and 33 of the Geneva Convention in so far as they are present in the Member State.’
Case C-571/17 PPU

Samet Ardic

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence — ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ — Scope — Person sentenced to a custodial sentence in final proceedings conducted in his presence — Execution of sentence subsequently suspended in part subject to certain conditions — Subsequent proceedings leading to revocation of the suspension due to non-compliance with those conditions — Revocation proceedings conducted in the absence of the person concerned)

Summary – Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 22 December 2017

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters–Council Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States–Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant–Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of implementing a sentence handed down in absentia–‘Trial resulting in the decision’–Final judicial ruling, after an assessment of the case in fact and in law, on the guilt of that person and on the custodial sentence imposed on him (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 4a(1)) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters–Council Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States–Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant–Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of implementing a sentence handed down in absentia–‘Trial resulting in the decision’–concept of ‘decision’–Decision relating to the execution or application of a custodial sentence previously imposed–Not included–Conditions (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 4a(1)) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters–Council Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States–Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant–Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of implementing a sentence handed down in absentia–‘Trial resulting in the decision’–Proceedings the suspension of execution of a custodial sentence, subsequent to the proceedings which have already given rise to the final decision on the guilt of the person concerned and on the sentence imposed–Not included–Condition (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 4a(1))
Case C‑421/17

Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

v

Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna w Kutnie

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Supply of goods for consideration — Transfer by a public limited company of a building to a shareholder as the counterpart to the buy-back of its shares)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 13 June 2018

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of goods for consideration — Meaning — Transfer by a public limited company of a building to a shareholder as the counterpart to the buy-back of its shares — Included — Condition — Immovable asset used in the economic activity of the limited company

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 2(1)(a))

Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer by a limited company to one of its shareholders of the ownership of immovable property, made, as is the one at issue in the main proceedings, as consideration for the buy-back, by that limited company, under a mechanism for the redemption of shares provided for in national legislation, of shares held in its share capital by that shareholder, constitutes a supply of goods for consideration subject to value added tax provided that that immovable property is used in the economic activity of that limited company.

(see para. 46, operative part)
The concept of ‘education costs’ is an autonomous concept of EU law. In order to interpret that concept, its wording and the objectives pursued by the legislation must be taken into account in particular. The wording of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations states clearly that the costs incurred must enable attendance at an establishment which charges fees. The objective of adopting that provision is to ensure that the education allowance is more closely aligned on the actual expenditure incurred by officials. Thus, interpreted in the light of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, Article 3 of the General Implementing Provisions on granting the education allowance, adopted by the Parliament, provides that the education allowance is to cover registration and attendance fees at educational establishments which charge fees and transport costs, excluding all other costs. Having regard to the autonomous nature of the concept of ‘education costs’, the characterisation as that concept depends on the nature and constituent elements of the expenditure to be reimbursed.

The contributions made to the non-profit associations concerned cannot be classified as ‘education costs’. Those contributions constitute costs arising from requirements and activities connected with the specific programme and non-subsidised education provided by the schools in question, and must be regarded as ‘other expenses connected with following the curriculum of the educational establishment attended’ for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 3 of the General Implementing Provisions on granting the education allowance.

(see paras 17-20, 24)
Case C‑485/17

Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

v

Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 2(9) — Concept of ‘business premises’ — Criteria — Sales contract concluded on a stand run by a trader at a trade fair)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 7 August 2018

Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 2011/83 — Concept of ‘business premises’ — Stand run by a trader at a trade fair — Included — Criteria for assessment — To be determined by the national court

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/83, Art. 2(9))

Article 2(9) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that a stand, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, run by a trader at a trade fair, at which he carries out his activity for a few days each year, constitutes ‘business premises’ within the meaning of that provision if, in the light of all the factual circumstances surrounding that activity, in particular the appearance of the stand and the information relayed on the premises of the fair itself, a reasonably well‑informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer could reasonably assume that the trader is carrying out his activity there and will solicit him in order to conclude a contract, which is for the national court to ascertain.

The duration of the trade fair concerned is not, in itself, conclusive in that regard, the EU legislature having intended, as is apparent from recital 22 of Directive 2011/83, that premises where the trader carries out his activity on a seasonal basis may constitute ‘business premises’ within the meaning of Article 2(9) of the directive.

(see paras 45, 46, operative part)
Appeal—Grounds—Mistaken assessment of the facts—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted—Plea alleging distortion of the facts—Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 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 47-49)