ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
18

According to recitals 1 to 3 and 14 in the preamble to Directive 2009/145: ‘(1) The questions of biodiversity and the conservation of plant genetic resources have grown in importance in recent years, as shown by different developments at international and Community level. Examples include Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity [OJ 1993 L 309, p. 1], [Decision 2004/869], Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 of 24 April 2004 establishing a Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 [OJ 2004 L 162, p. 18] and Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1]. Specific conditions should be established under Directive [2002/55] in order to take account of these issues as regards the marketing of vegetable seed. (2) In order to ensure in situ conservation and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources, landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion (conservation varieties) should be grown and marketed even where they do not comply with the general requirements as regards the acceptance of varieties and the marketing of seed. In addition to the general aim of protecting plant genetic resources, the particular interest of preserving these varieties lies in the fact that they are especially well adapted to particular local conditions. (3) In order to ensure the sustainable use of plant genetic resources, varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions (varieties developed for growing under particular conditions) should be grown and marketed even where they do not comply with the general requirements as regards the acceptance of varieties and the marketing of seed. In addition to the general aim of protecting plant genetic resources, the particular interest of preserving these varieties lies in the fact that they are apt to be grown under particular climatic, pedological or agro-technical conditions (such as manual care, repeated harvesting). … (14) After 3 years the Commission should assess whether the measures provided for in this Directive, in particular the provisions concerning quantitative restrictions for the marketing of seed of conservation varieties and of varieties developed for growing under particular conditions, are effective.’
10

The words ‘person from abroad’ are defined in Regulation 21AA of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. According to the referring court, those provisions apply as follows: ‘Claimants who come within regulation 21AA(4) [of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987] are not persons from abroad. They will all have the right to reside and do not have to be habitually resident [in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Ireland]. In order to be entitled to income support, anyone else must be habitually resident [in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Ireland] (regulation 21AA(1) [of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987]). If they are not, they are persons from abroad and not entitled to income support. In order to be habitually resident [in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Ireland], they must have a right to reside [depending on the case, in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Ireland] (regulation 21AA(2) [of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987]). If they do not, they are persons from abroad and not entitled to income support. But persons who come within regulation 21AA(3) [of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987] cannot have a right to reside and cannot, therefore, be habitually resident [in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Ireland]. As a result, they are persons from abroad and not entitled to income support.’
6

Article 4a of Regulation No 320/2006, headed ‘Application for restructuring aid by growers’, provides: ‘1. For the 2008/2009 marketing year, any grower of sugar beet or cane intended to be processed into quota sugar may submit to the Member State concerned a direct application for the aid provided for in Article 3(6) and 3(7), accompanied by a commitment to cease his delivery of quota beet or cane to the undertaking with which he has concluded a delivery contract in the preceding marketing year. ... 2. The applications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted by 30 November 2007. Applications may be submitted as from 30 October 2007. 3. The Member State concerned shall establish a list of applications referred to in paragraph 1 in the chronological order of their lodging and shall communicate the total amount of quota affected by the applications received within 10 working days following the deadline for submission as referred to in paragraph 2 to the Commission and the undertakings concerned. 4. By 15 March 2008, the Member State concerned shall, on the basis of the chronological order referred to in paragraph 3 ..., grant growers’ applications corresponding to up to 10% of the sugar quota allocated to each undertaking and shall reduce in proportion the sugar quota of the undertaking concerned in accordance with Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 ... In the case where any of the limits of 10% referred to in the first subparagraph is reached, the Member State concerned shall reject the applications above this limit according to the chronological order of submission. ... 5. As a result of the Member State’s acceptance of applications in accordance with paragraph 4, the amount of restructuring aid to be granted shall be as follows: (a) for growers and contractors, ... (b) for undertakings, ... 6. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article shall not apply where an undertaking’s application in accordance with Article 4 has been granted as from the marketing year 2008/2009 renouncing an amount of quota higher than the quota affected by the growers’ applications. The same shall apply in any case, where an undertaking’s application has been granted as from the marketing year 2008/2009 renouncing more than 10% of its quota.’
13

In those circumstances the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Must Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive [89/104] be interpreted as meaning that in principle this provision generally precludes a national rule pursuant to which the use of a trade mark (Trade Mark 1) must be presumed even if the trade mark (Trade Mark 1) is used in a form differing from the form in which it was registered, without the differences altering the distinctive character of the trade mark (Trade Mark 1), and if the trade mark in the form used is also registered (Trade Mark 2)? 2. If question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the national provision described in the first question compatible with Directive [89/104] if the national provision is interpreted restrictively as meaning that it is not applicable to a trade mark (Trade Mark 1) which is registered only in order to secure or expand the protection of another registered trade mark (Trade Mark 2) that is registered in the form in which it is used? 3. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative or question 2 is answered in the negative: (a) Is there no use of a registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1) within the meaning of Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive [89/104]: (i) if the trade mark proprietor uses the form of a sign which differs only in elements from the form in which it (Trade Mark 1) and a further trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor are registered but the differences do not alter the distinctive character of the trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2); (ii) if the trade mark proprietor uses two forms of sign, neither of which corresponds to the registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1), but one of the forms used (Form 1) is the same as another registered trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor and the second form used by the trade mark proprietor (Form 2) differs in elements from both registered trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2), without the differences altering the distinctive character of the trade marks, and if this form of sign (Form 2) displays greater similarity to the other trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor? (b) Is a court of a Member State permitted to apply a national provision (here the second sentence of Paragraph 26(3) of the [MarkenG]) which conflicts with a provision of a directive (here Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive [89/104]) in cases in which the facts of the case had already occurred prior to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in which indications of the incompatibility of the Member State’s legislation with the provision of the directive became apparent for the first time (the judgment of 13 September 2007 in Case C-234/06 P Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM … [2007] ECR I-7333) if the national court values the reliance of a party to the court proceedings on the validity of his position, secured under constitutional law, more highly than the interest in the implementation of a provision of the directive?’
6

Article 47 of the Directive, entitled ‘Economic and financial standing’, provides: ‘1. Proof of the economic operator’s economic and financial standing may, as a general rule, be furnished by one or more of the following references: (a) appropriate statements from banks or, where appropriate, evidence of relevant professional risk indemnity insurance; (b) the presentation of balance-sheets or extracts from the balance-sheets, where publication of the balance-sheet is required under the law of the country in which the economic operator is established; (c) a statement of the undertaking’s overall turnover and, where appropriate, of turnover in the area covered by the contract for a maximum of the last three financial years available, depending on the date on which the undertaking was set up or the economic operator started trading, as far as the information on these turnovers is available. 2. An economic operator may, where appropriate and for a particular contract, rely on the capacities of other entities, regardless of the legal nature of the links which it has with them. It must in that case prove to the contracting authority that it will have at its disposal the resources necessary, for example, by producing an undertaking by those entities to that effect. 3. Under the same conditions, a group of economic operators as referred to in Article 4 may rely on the capacities of participants in the group or of other entities. 4. Contracting authorities shall specify, in the contract notice or in the invitation to tender, which reference or references mentioned in paragraph 1 they have chosen and which other references must be provided. 5. If, for any valid reason, the economic operator is unable to provide the references requested by the contracting authority, he may prove his economic and financial standing by any other document which the contracting authority considers appropriate.’
32

In that regard, it should be noted that it is one of the essential characteristics of VAT that it is imposed on the added value of the goods or services concerned, since the tax payable on a transaction is calculated after the tax paid on the preceding transaction has been deducted (see, inter alia, Case C-208/91 Beaulande [1992] ECR I-6709, paragraph 14; Case C-347/95 UCAL [1997] ECR I-4911, paragraph 34; and Case C-308/01 GIL Insurance and Others [2004] ECR I-4777, paragraph 33). Consequently, the option of treating certain applications as supplies made for consideration, as interpreted above, cannot be used in order to charge VAT on the value of goods which the taxable person concerned has made available to the third party who completed or improved them, to the extent that the taxable person has already, in the context of an earlier tax period, paid VAT on that value. As the Commission stated, such repeated taxation would be incompatible both with the essential characteristic of VAT, referred to above, and with the aim of the above option, which is intended to enable Member States to make subject to VAT the application of goods for the purposes of activities exempt from VAT, but in no way authorises Member States to levy VAT several times on the same element of the value of those goods.
3

Recitals 2, 3, 5, 17 and 18 in the preamble to Directive 93/42 are worded as follows: ‘Whereas the content and scope of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force in the Member States with regard to the safety, health protection and performance characteristics of medical devices are different; whereas the certification and inspection procedures for such devices differ from one Member State to another; whereas such disparities constitute barriers to trade within the Community; Whereas the national provisions for the safety and health protection of patients, users and, where appropriate, other persons, with regard to the use of medical devices should be harmonised in order to guarantee the free movement of such devices within the internal market; … Whereas medical devices should provide patients, users and third parties with a high level of protection and attain the performance levels attributed to them by the manufacturer; whereas, therefore, the maintenance or improvement of the level of protection attained in the Member States is one of the essential objectives of this Directive; … Whereas medical devices should, as a general rule, bear the CE mark to indicate their conformity with the provisions of this Directive to enable them to move freely within the Community and to be put into service in accordance with their intended purpose; Whereas, in the fight against AIDS and in the light of the conclusions of the Council adopted on 16 May 1989 regarding future activities on AIDS prevention and control at Community level, medical devices used for protection against the HIV virus must afford a high level of protection; whereas the design and manufacture of such products should be verified by a notified body;’
23

In those circumstances, the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 7 of [Regulation No 1896/2006] to be interpreted as: (a) governing exhaustively all the requirements which must be met by an application for a European order for payment, or (b) determining only the minimum requirements for such an application and requiring that the provisions of national law be applied to the formal requirements for an application in the case of matters not governed by that provision? (2) If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative, where the application does not meet the formal requirements laid down in the law of the Member State (for example, the copy of the application intended for the opposing party has not been attached or the value of the subject-matter of the dispute is not specified), must a request for the claimant to complete the application be made pursuant to provisions of national law, in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation No 1896/2006, or pursuant to Article 9 thereof? (3) Is Article 4 of Regulation No 1896/2006 to be interpreted as meaning that the features of a pecuniary claim which are referred to in that provision – that is to say, the fact that it is of a specific amount and has fallen due at the time when the application for a European order for payment is submitted – relate only to the principal claim or also to the claim for default interest? (4) On a correct interpretation of Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006, where the law of a Member State does not provide for the automatic addition of interest, is it possible, in a European order for payment procedure, to demand in addition to the principal: (a) all interest, including ‘open interest’ (calculated from the day on which it falls due, expressed as a specific date, to a day of payment not specified by date: for example, ‘from 20 March 2011 to the day of payment’); (b) only interest calculated from the day on which it falls due, expressed as a specific date, to the day on which the application is submitted or the order for payment is issued; (c) only interest calculated from the day on which it falls due, expressed as a specific date, to the day on which the application is submitted? (5) If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative, how must the court’s decision on interest be formulated in the order for payment form, in accordance with Regulation No 1896/2006? (6) If Question 4(b) is answered in the affirmative, who must indicate the amount of interest: the party concerned or the court of its own motion? (7) If Question 4(c) is answered in the affirmative, does the party concerned have an obligation to indicate the amount of calculated interest in the application? (8) If the claimant does not calculate the interest claimed up until the day on which the application is submitted, must the court calculate that amount of its own motion, or must it then request the party concerned to complete the application pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 1896/2006?’
19

In those circumstances, the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is national legislation which, in order to attain the objective of restricting the supply of games of chance, grants the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance to a single undertaking, which has the form of a public limited company and is listed on the stock exchange, compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC where, moreover, that undertaking advertises the games of chance which it organises and it expands abroad, players participate freely and the maximum bet and winnings are set per form and not per player? 2. If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, is national legislation which, in seeking exclusively to combat criminality by exercising control over the undertakings that operate in the sector at issue so as to ensure that those activities are carried out solely within controlled systems, grants a single undertaking the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC even where grant of the right results in parallel in unrestricted expansion of the supply in question? Or is it necessary in every case, in order for that restriction to be considered suitable for achieving the objective of combating criminality, that the expansion of supply be controlled in any event, that is to say, be only as great as is required in order to achieve that objective? If that expansion must in any event be controlled, can expansion be considered controlled from that point of view if the exclusive right in the sector in question is granted to a body with the attributes described in the first question referred? Finally, if grant of the exclusive right in question is considered to result in controlled expansion of the supply of games of chance, does its grant to just a single undertaking go beyond what is necessary, in the sense that the same objective can also be profitably served by granting that right to more than one undertaking? 3. If, following the above two questions referred, it were to be held that the grant, by the national provisions relevant in the case in point, of an exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance is not compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC: (a) is it permissible, for the purposes of those provisions of the Treaty, for the national authorities not to examine, during a transitional period necessary in order to enact rules compatible with the EC Treaty, applications to engage in the activities in question submitted by persons lawfully established in other Member States? (b) if the answer is in the affirmative, on the basis of what criteria is the duration of that transitional period determined? (c) if no transitional period is allowed, on the basis of what criteria must the national authorities rule on the applications?’
3

The first, third, sixth and eleventh recitals in the preamble to Directive 85/337 are worded as follows: ‘… the … action programmes of the European Communities on the environment … stress that the best environmental policy consists in preventing the creation of pollution or nuisances at source, rather than subsequently trying to counteract their effects; … they affirm the need to take effects on the environment into account at the earliest possible stage in all the technical-planning and decision-making processes; … to that end, they provide for the implementation of procedures to evaluate such effects; … … in addition, it is necessary to achieve one of the Community’s objectives in the sphere of the protection of the environment and the quality of life; … … general principles for the assessment of environmental effects should be introduced with a view to supplementing and coordinating development consent procedures governing public and private projects likely to have a major effect on the environment; … development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after prior assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of these projects has been carried out; … this assessment must be conducted on the basis of the appropriate information supplied by the developer, which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the people who may be concerned by the project in question; … … the effects of a project on the environment must be assessed in order to take account of concerns to protect human health, to contribute by means of a better environment to the quality of life, to ensure maintenance of the diversity of species and to maintain the reproductive capacity of the ecosystem as a basic resource for life’.