ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6

Article 57, contained in Title III, is worded as follows: ‘1. When an offender is a foreign national and commits offences which may be classified as “very serious” or “serious”, within the meaning of Article 53(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of this law, having regard to the principle of proportionality, removal from Spanish territory may be ordered, instead of a fine, following the appropriate administrative procedure and by means of a reasoned decision which includes an assessment of the facts which constitute the offence. 2. Likewise, the foreign national’s conviction, in Spain or abroad, of wilful misconduct constituting in Spain a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year shall constitute a legal basis for expulsion, after the relevant procedure has been brought to a close, unless the conviction is spent. 3. In no circumstances may the penalties of expulsion and a fine be imposed concurrently. 4. Expulsion will entail, in any event, the termination of any authorisation to remain legally in Spain, as well as the termination of any procedure by which the foreign national who has been removed is seeking authorisation to reside or work in Spain. However, the expulsion order may be revoked in certain cases established by law. … 5. Unless the offence committed is that laid down in Article 54(1)(a), or consists in the repetition, within a period of one year, of an offence of the same nature punishable by expulsion, the sanction of expulsion may not be imposed on foreign nationals who are in the following situations: … (b) Long-term residents: Before a decision is taken to expel a long-term resident, consideration should be given to the length of time they have resided in Spain and the links created [with Spain], their age, the consequences for the person concerned and the members of their family, and the links with the country to which they are to be removed. …’
4

Article 16 of that regulation, entitled ‘Dealing with [EU] trade marks as national trade marks’, states: ‘1. Unless Articles 17 to 24 provide otherwise, [an EU] trade mark as an object of property shall be dealt with in its entirety, and for the whole area of the [European Union], as a national trade mark registered in the Member State in which, according to the Register of [EU] trade marks: (a) the proprietor has his seat or his domicile on the relevant date; (b) where point (a) does not apply, the proprietor has an establishment on the relevant date. 2. In cases which are not provided for by paragraph 1, the Member State referred to in that paragraph shall be the Member State in which the seat of the [European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)] is situated. 3. If two or more persons are mentioned in the Register of [EU] trade marks as joint proprietors, paragraph 1 shall apply to the joint proprietor first mentioned; failing this, it shall apply to the subsequent joint proprietors in the order in which they are mentioned. Where paragraph 1 does not apply to any of the joint proprietors, paragraph 2 shall apply.’
14

Paragraph 107 of the Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (Law on proceedings in family matters and in matters of non-contentious jurisdiction; ‘the FamFG’), entitled ‘Recognition of foreign decisions in matrimonial matters’, provides as follows: ‘(1) Decisions delivered abroad by which a marriage is annulled, invalidated [or] terminated … shall be recognised only if the Land Justice Administration has found that the requirements for recognition are met. If a court or authority of a State of which both spouses were nationals at the time of the decision has given a ruling, recognition shall not depend on a finding by the Land Justice Administration. (2) The Justice Administration of the Land in which one of the spouses habitually resides shall have jurisdiction. … (3) The Governments of the Länder may delegate, by regulation, the powers conferred by these provisions on the Länder Justice Administrations to one or more Presidents of the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Courts) … (4) The decision shall be made on application. The application may be made by any person demonstrating a legal interest in the recognition. (5) If the Land Justice Administration rejects the application, the applicant may ask the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) to rule. (6) If the Land Justice Administration finds that the requirements for recognition are met, the spouse who did not make the application may ask the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) to give a ruling. The decision of the Land Justice Administration shall take effect upon notification to the applicant. However, the Land Justice Administration may determine in its decision that such a decision shall first become effective after a certain period of time has passed. (7) The Civil Chamber of the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) in the jurisdiction of which the Land Justice Administration has its seat shall be the competent court. An application for a judicial decision shall not have suspensive effect. Parts 4 and 5 and Paragraphs 14(1) and (2) and 48(2) shall apply mutatis mutandis. (8) The above provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis when an application is made for a finding that the requirements for recognition are not met. (9) The determination that the requirements for recognition are or are not met shall be binding upon courts and administrative authorities. …’
14

Article 24 of the CIVA, entitled ‘Adjustments of deductions in respect of fixed assets’, provides in paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6: ‘2 — The deductions shall be adjusted annually on expenditure on investment in immovable property if there is a positive or negative difference equal to or greater than five percentage points between the final percentage referred to in the previous article, applicable during the year of the occupation of the property and of each of the subsequent 19 calendar years, and that which was determined during the year of acquisition or the completion of the works. 3 — For the adjustment of deductions in respect of fixed assets, referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the procedure to be adopted is as follows: (a) at the end of the year in which the use or occupation of the property began and in each of the 4 or 19 subsequent calendar years, as the case may be, it will be necessary to calculate the amount of the deduction which would apply if the acquisition of, or the completion of the works at, the immovable property had taken place during the year in question, in accordance with the final percentage for that year; (b) the amount thus obtained shall be subtracted from the deduction made in the year in which the acquisition took place or from the sum of the deductions made until the year in which the works undertaken at the immovable property were completed; (c) the positive or negative difference shall be divided by 5 or 20, as the case may be, with the result thus obtained corresponding to the amount to be paid or to the additional deduction to be made in the year in question. … 5 — Where fixed assets are transferred during the period of adjustment, that adjustment shall be made only once for the unexpired period, to the extent that those assets are to be used for an activity which is taxed in full in the year in which the transfer takes place and in the subsequent years until the adjustment period expires. However, if the transfer is exempt from tax by virtue of Article 9(30) or (32), the property shall be deemed to be used for an activity that is not taxed and, in the former case, the relevant adjustment shall be made. 6 — The adjustment provided for in the previous paragraph shall also apply, to the extent that those assets are to be used for an activity that is not taxed in the case of immovable property for which there was an initial deduction, in full or in part, of the tax on the construction or purchase of the property, or other related investment costs, where: (a) due to a change in the activity carried on or because of a legal requirement, the taxable person engages exclusively in exempt transactions without the right of deduction; (b) the taxable person engages exclusively in exempt transactions without the right of deduction by virtue of Article 12(3) or Article 55(3) and (4); (c) the property is being let under an exempt lease in accordance with Article 9(29).’
3

Article 10a of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969 (Law on corporation tax, 1969; ‘the Law on corporation tax’) is worded as follows: ‘… 2. When profits are being determined …, interest — including costs and currency exchange results — may not be deducted if it relates to loans which in law or in fact are directly or indirectly payable to a related entity or related natural person, in so far as the loan relates to one of the following legal transactions: a. ... b. an acquisition — including the paying up — of shares, redeemed shares, participation certificates, membership rights or debts which function, in fact, for the debtor as own funds within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d), in a related entity, except in so far as a change is made to the ultimate ownership or the ultimate control of that entity; 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply if the taxpayer can demonstrate that: a. there are predominantly sound business reasons for the loan and for the associated legal transaction; or b. ultimately, a profit tax or income tax which, in accordance with the Netherlands criteria, is reasonable is levied on the interest of the person to whom interest is payable, in law or fact, directly or indirectly, and that there is no offsetting of losses or charges of another kind for the years preceding that in which the loan is taken out with the result that, ultimately, no tax is payable on the interest according to the criteria of reasonableness referred to, except where it is plausible that the loan was taken out with a view to offsetting losses or charges of another kind which arose during the year itself or will arise in the short term.’
8

Article 36 of decreto legislativo n. 165 — Norme generali sull’ordinamento del lavoro alle dipendenze delle amministrazioni pubbliche (Legislative Decree No 165 laying down general rules concerning the organisation of employment in public authorities) of 30 March 2001 (Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 106 of 9 May 2001, ‘Legislative Decree No 165/2001’) is worded as follows: ‘1. For requirements connected with their everyday needs, public authorities shall recruit exclusively by means of employment contracts of indefinite duration … 2. To meet exclusively temporary and exceptional requirements, public authorities may make use of the flexible forms of contract for the recruitment and employment of staff provided for in the Civil Code and the laws on employment relationships in undertakings, in accordance with existing recruitment procedures … … 5. In any event, infringement of mandatory provisions on the recruitment or employment of workers by public authorities cannot lead to the creation of employment relationships of indefinite duration with those public authorities, without prejudice to any liability or sanction which those authorities may incur. The worker concerned shall be entitled to compensation for damage suffered as a result of working in breach of mandatory provisions. The authorities must recover any sums paid in that connection from the managers responsible if the infringement is intentional or the result of wilful misconduct or gross negligence. Managers who act in breach of provisions of this Article shall also be responsible within the meaning of Article 21 of this Decree. These infringements will be taken into account in the evaluation of the work of the manager pursuant to Article 5 of Legislative Decree No 286 of 30 July 1999. … 5 quater. Fixed-term employment contracts established in breach of this Article shall be deemed null and void and shall give rise to the responsibility of the authority. Managers who act in breach of the provisions of this Article shall also be responsible within the meaning of Article 21. No performance bonus may be awarded to managers who have made unlawful use of flexible work.’
30

In those circumstances, the Landgericht Berlin (Regional Court, Berlin) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) (a) Is extradition between a Member State and a third country a matter which, irrespective of the facts of the individual case, never comes within the material scope of the Treaties, with the result that the EU-law prohibition of discrimination under the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU is not to be taken into account in the application of a (literally interpreted) rule of constitutional law (in this case, the first sentence of Article 16(2) of the Basic Law), which prohibits extradition only of that Member State’s own nationals to third countries? (b) If that question is answered in the affirmative, is the first question to be answered differently if the matter of extradition between a Member State and the United States of America is based on the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America? (2) In so far as the applicability of the Treaties with regard to extradition between Member States and the United States of America is not excluded from the outset: Is the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to that provision to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State unjustifiably breaches the prohibition of discrimination under the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU in the case where, on the basis of a rule of constitutional law (the first sentence of Article 16(2) of the Basic Law), it treats, in the matter of requests for extradition received from third countries, its own nationals and nationals of other … Member States differently inasmuch as it extradites only the latter? (3) Should such cases be found to fall foul of the general prohibition of discrimination laid down in the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU: Is the case-law of the Court of Justice to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the present — in which, for extradition to be authorised by the competent authority, there must mandatorily be a prior judicial review of its legality, the result of which, however, binds the authority only if that extradition is declared to be impermissible — a mere breach of the prohibition of discrimination under the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU may itself constitute a serious breach, or must the breach be manifest? (4) If a manifest breach is not required: Is the case-law of the Court of Justice to be interpreted as meaning that there is a priori no sufficiently serious breach in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which, in the absence of case-law of the Court of Justice with regard to the particular type of factual situation at issue (namely, the objective applicability of the general prohibition of discrimination under the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU to matters relating to extradition between Member States and the United States of America), the highest national executive authority can, in support of its decision, point to the fact that its decision is in line with previous decisions of national courts in the same matter?’
Articles 70 to 72 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, read in conjunction with Articles 23 and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which there have been found to be multiple instances of non-compliance within the same area, the reduction of the total amount of direct payments that have been, or are to be, granted that is applicable to instances of negligent non-compliance, on the one hand, and the reduction that is applicable to instances of intentional non-compliance, on the other hand, must be aggregated, with the total amount of reductions for one calendar year having to be fixed in compliance with the principle of proportionality and without exceeding the total amount referred to in Article 23(1) of Regulation No 73/2009.
14

Article 30 of the Framework Directive, entitled ‘Vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units not in conformity with the approved type’, provides: ‘1. If a Member State which has granted an EC type-approval finds that new vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units accompanied by a certificate of conformity or bearing an approval mark do not conform to the type it has approved, it shall take the necessary measures, including, where necessary, the withdrawal of type-approval, to ensure that production vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units, as the case may be, are brought into conformity with the approved type. The approval authority of that Member State shall advise the approval authorities of the other Member States of the measures taken. … 3. If a Member State demonstrates that new vehicles, components or separate technical units accompanied by a certificate of conformity or bearing an approval mark do not conform to the approved type, it may ask the Member State which granted the EC type-approval to verify that vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units in production continue to conform to the approved type. On receipt of such a request, the Member State concerned shall take the requisite action as soon as possible and in any case within six months of the date of the request. 4. The approval authority shall request the Member State which granted the system, component, separate technical unit or incomplete vehicle type-approval to take the necessary action to ensure that vehicles in production are brought back into conformity with the approved type in the following cases: (a) in relation to an EC vehicle type-approval, where the non-conformity of a vehicle is attributable exclusively to the non-conformity of a system, component or separate technical unit; (b) in relation to a multi-stage type-approval, where the non-conformity of a completed vehicle is attributable exclusively to the non-conformity of a system, component or separate technical unit being part of the incomplete vehicle, or of the incomplete vehicle itself. On receipt of such a request, the Member State concerned shall take the requisite action, if necessary in conjunction with the Member State making the request, as soon as possible and in any case within six months of the date of the request. Where a failure to conform is established, the approval authority of the Member State which granted the system, component or separate technical unit EC type-approval or the approval of the incomplete vehicle shall take the measures set out in paragraph 1. …’
12

Title I, Chapter II, entitled ‘Provisions concerning cooperation and exchanges of data’, provides in Article 5, entitled ‘Legal value of documents and supporting evidence issued in another Member State’: ‘1. Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purposes of the application of [Regulation No 883/2004] and of [Regulation No 987/2009], and supporting evidence on the basis of which the documents have been issued, shall be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the Member State in which they were issued. 2. Where there is doubt about the validity of a document or the accuracy of the facts on which the particulars contained therein are based, the institution of the Member State that receives the document shall ask the issuing institution for the necessary clarification and, where appropriate, the withdrawal of that document. The issuing institution shall reconsider the grounds for issuing the document and, if necessary, withdraw it. 3. Pursuant to paragraph 2, where there is doubt about the information provided by the persons concerned, the validity of a document or supporting evidence or the accuracy of the facts on which the particulars contained therein are based, the institution of the place of stay or residence shall, insofar as this is possible, at the request of the competent institution, proceed to the necessary verification of this information or document. 4. Where no agreement is reached between the institutions concerned, the matter may be brought before the Administrative Commission by the competent authorities no earlier than one month following the date on which the institution that received the document submitted its request. The Administrative Commission shall seek to reconcile the points of view within six months of the date on which the matter was brought before it.’
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — Commission v Spain

(Case C‑181/17) ( 1 )

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport policy — Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 — Road transport operator — Licence for public transport — Conditions for grant — Article 3(1) and (2) — Article 5(b) — Number of vehicles required — National legislation — Stricter conditions for grant — Higher minimum number of vehicles)

Transport—Road transport—Regulation No 1071/2009—Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator—Conditions relating to the requirement of establishment—National legislation restricting the pursuit of the occupation of road transport operator to undertakings with at least three vehicles—Failure to fulfil obligations

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1071/2009, Arts 3(1) and (2) and 5(b))

(see para. 21, operative part)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring undertakings to have at least three vehicles in order to obtain a public transport licence, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.