ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 39(2) and the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes, by operation of law, from those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament persons who were convicted of a serious crime and whose conviction became final before 1 March 1994.

It is admittedly clear that such deprivation of the right to vote represents a limitation of the exercise of the right guaranteed in Article 39(2) of the Charter. Nevertheless, Article 52(1) of the Charter accepts that limitations may be imposed on the exercise of rights such as those set forth in Article 39(2) of the Charter, as long as the limitations are provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and freedoms and, subject to the principle of proportionality, are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. In that regard, since the deprivation of the right to vote at issue stems from the application of the combined provisions of national law, it must be held that it is provided for by law. Furthermore, that limitation respects the essence of the right to vote referred to in Article 39(2) of the Charter. The limitation does not call into question that right as such, since it has the effect of excluding certain persons, under specific conditions and on account of their conduct, from those entitled to vote in elections to the Parliament, as long as those conditions are fulfilled. Lastly, such a limitation is proportionate in so far as, first, it takes into account the nature and gravity of the criminal offence committed and the duration of the penalty and, secondly, national law provides for the possibility of a person who is subject to a ban on voting applying for, and obtaining, the lifting of that ban.

As regards the rule as to the retroactive effect of a more lenient criminal law, set out in the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter, that rule states that if, subsequent to the commission of a criminal offence, the law provides for a lighter penalty, that penalty is to be applicable. That rule does not preclude the national legislation at issue since that legislation is limited to maintaining the deprivation of the right to vote resulting, by operation of law, from a criminal conviction only in respect of final convictions by judgment delivered at last instance under the old Criminal Code.

(see paras 45-49, 51, 53, 56, 58, operative part)
28

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court rejected Hungary’s action as inadmissible on the ground that the entry at issue did not produce legal effects and was not therefore an ‘actionable measure’ for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court relied inter alia on the automatic nature of the protection of wine names already protected under Regulation No 1493/1999, as laid down by Article 118s(1) of Regulation No 1234/2007. In that regard, the General Court ruled as follows in paragraph 21 of the judgment under appeal: ‘It follows from the automatic nature of the protection of wine names already protected under Regulation No 1493/1999, as laid down in Article 118s(1) of Regulation No 1234/2007 … that, as regards those wine names, an entry in the E-Bacchus database is not necessary for them to benefit from protection at EU level. The wine names in question are “automatically” protected under Regulation No 1234/2007 … without that protection being dependent on their entry in the database. That entry is only a consequence of the automatic transition of the pre-existing protection from one regulatory regime to another and not a condition of that protection. Therefore, since the protected designation of origin “Vinohradnícka oblasť Tokaj” is one of the wine names already protected under Regulation No 1493/1999, its inclusion in the E-Bacchus database was not necessary for its protected designation of origin to benefit from protection at EU level.’
18

Nevertheless, the European Commission has examined the various texts referred to by the referring court, making the following comments: — Decision 2005/370 merely incorporates the Aarhus Convention into the EU legal order: it is an EU measure which does not stand in need of reception at national level in the Member States; — Regulation No 1367/2006 is addressed, not to the Member States, but to the EU institutions, and has no connection with the facts in the main proceedings; nor, a fortiori, does it have any connection with Legislative Decree No 42/04; — the same is true of Directive 2003/4 on public access to environmental information; — there is nothing in the case-file to suggest that Directive 2011/92 is relevant to the dispute before the referring court, given that the fact that no environmental impact assessment was undertaken in respect of the work carried out by Mr Siragusa does not seem to raise any issues regarding compliance with that directive; — the obligations laid down in Articles 3(3) TEU and 21(2)(f) TEU are incumbent upon the European Union, not the Member States; — Article 4(2)(e) TFEU concerns the distribution of powers between the Member States and the European Union and appears in the part of that treaty which is dedicated to principles; — the obligation laid down in Article 11 TFEU, too, is incumbent upon the European Union; — the obligations laid down in Article 114 TFEU are incumbent upon the EU institutions, not the Member States; and — even assuming that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of EU law by reason of the reference made to Article 191 TFEU, the Court has already had occasion to state that, since that provision is directed at action at EU level, it cannot be relied on as such by individuals in order to exclude the application of national legislation in an area covered by environmental policy for which there is no EU legislation adopted on the basis of Article 192 TFEU that specifically covers the situation in question (Case C-378/08 ERG and Others [2010] ECR I-1919, paragraph 46).
28

In those circumstances, the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer, in each of the cases in the main proceedings, the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does Article 3(1) and (3) of [Directive 2008/95] preclude an interpretation of national law according to which, for an abstract colour mark (in this case: red HKS 13) which is claimed for services in the financial affairs sector, a consumer survey must indicate an adjusted degree of association of at least 70% in order to form a basis for the assumption that the trade mark has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it? (2) Is the first sentence of Article 3(3) of [Directive 2008/95] to be interpreted to the effect that the time at which the application for the trade mark was filed — and not the time at which it was registered — is relevant in the case where the trade mark proprietor claims, in his defence against an application for a declaration invalidating the trade mark, that the trade mark acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, in any event more than three years after the application, but prior to registration? (3) In the event that, under the abovementioned conditions, the time at which the application was filed is also relevant: Is the trade mark to be declared invalid if it is not clarified, and can no longer be clarified, whether it had acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed? Or does the declaration of invalidity require the applicant seeking that declaration to prove that the trade mark had not acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed?’
10

Article 32 of that regulation, entitled ‘Reductions and exclusions in cases of overdeclaration’, provides: ‘1. If, in respect of a crop-group, the area declared exceeds the area determined in accordance with Article 31(2) the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined reduced by twice the difference found if that difference is more than either 3% or two hectares but no more than 20% of the area determined. If the difference is more than 20% of the area determined, no area-linked aid shall be granted for the crop-group concerned. 2. If, in respect of the overall area determined covered by an application for aid under the aid schemes referred to in Article 1(1)(a) of [Regulation No 3508/92], the area declared exceeds the area determined in accordance with Article 31(2) by more than 30%, the aid to which the farmer would have been entitled pursuant to Article 31(2) shall be refused for the calendar year in question under those aid schemes. If the difference is more than 50% the farmer shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to an amount equal to the amount which corresponds to the difference between the area declared and the area determined in accordance with Article 31(2). This amount shall be off-set against aid payments under any of the aid schemes referred to in Article 1(1) of [Regulation No 3508/92] to which the farmer is entitled in the context of applications he lodges in the course of the three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding. If the amount cannot be fully off-set against those aid payments, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.’
22

In those circumstances, the Tartu ringkonnakohus decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is Article 3(1) of … Regulation … No 661/2008] to be interpreted as meaning that the importer and the first independent customer in the [Union] must always be one and the same person? 2. Is Article 3(1) of … Regulation … No 661/2008, in conjunction with … Decision 2008/577 …, to be interpreted as meaning that exemption from anti-dumping duty applies only to such first independent customer in the [Union] as has not resold the goods to be declared prior to making the declaration? 3. Is Article 66 of the Community Customs Code …, in conjunction with Article 251 of … Regulation … No 2454/93 and the other procedural rules relating to subsequent amendments to a customs declaration, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the wrong consignee is entered in a customs declaration on the importation of goods, it must be possible, on request, for the declaration to be invalidated and the consignee’s details to be corrected even after the goods have been released if the customs duty exemption provided for in Article 3(1) of … Regulation … No 661/2008 would have had to be applied if the correct consignee had been entered, or is Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code … to be interpreted, in those circumstances, as meaning that the customs authorities are not entitled to make a subsequent entry in the accounts? 4. If both of the alternatives in Question (3) should be answered in the negative, must it be considered compatible with Article 20 of the Charter …, in conjunction with Article 28(1) TFEU and Article 31 TFEU, for Article 66 of the Community Customs Code …, in conjunction with Article 251 of … Regulation … No 2454/93 and the other procedural rules relating to subsequent amendments to a customs declaration, not to permit a declaration to be invalidated and the consignee’s details to be corrected, on request, after the goods have been released, if the customs duty exemption provided for in Article 3(1) of … Regulation … No 661/2008 would have had to be applied if the correct consignee had been entered?’
8

Annex I to the Directive, entitled ‘Requirements for urban waste water’, is worded as follows: ‘A. Collecting systems … Collecting systems shall take into account waste water treatment requirements. The design, construction and maintenance of collecting systems shall be undertaken in accordance with the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs, notably regarding: — volume and characteristics of urban waste water, — prevention of leaks, — limitation of pollution of receiving waters due to storm water overflows. B. Discharge from urban waste water treatment plants to receiving waters … 1. Waste water treatment plants shall be designed or modified so that representative samples of the incoming waste water and of treated effluent can be obtained before discharge to receiving waters. 2. Discharges from urban waste water treatment plants subject to treatment in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 shall meet the requirements shown in Table 1. … D. Reference methods for monitoring and evaluation of results 1. Member States shall ensure that a monitoring method is applied which corresponds at least with the level of requirements described below. … 2. Flow-proportional or time-based 24-hour samples shall be collected at the same well-defined point in the outlet and if necessary in the inlet of the treatment plant in order to monitor compliance with the requirements for discharged waste water laid down in this Directive. Good international laboratory practices aiming at minimising the degradation of samples between collection and analysis shall be applied. 3. The minimum annual number of samples shall be determined according to the size of the treatment plant and be collected at regular intervals during the year: — 2000 to 9 999 p.e.: 12 samples during the first year. four samples in subsequent years, if it can be shown that the water during the first year complies with the provisions of the Directive; if one sample of the four fails, 12 samples must be taken in the year that follows. …’
10

Article 5 of Directive 2001/77, under the title ‘Guarantee of origin of electricity produced from renewable energy sources’, provided: ‘(1) Member States shall, not later than 27 October 2003, ensure that the origin of electricity produced from renewable energy sources can be guaranteed as such within the meaning of this Directive according to objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria laid down by each Member State. They shall ensure that a guarantee of origin is issued to this effect in response to a request. (2) Member States may designate one or more competent bodies, independent of generation and distribution activities, to supervise the issue of such guarantees of origin. (3) A guarantee of origin shall: — specify the energy source from which the electricity was produced, specifying the dates and places of production, and in the case of hydroelectric installations, indicate the capacity; — serve to enable producers of electricity from renewable energy sources to demonstrate that the electricity they sell is produced from renewable energy sources within the meaning of this Directive. (4) Such guarantees of origin, issued according to paragraph 2, should be mutually recognised by the Member States, exclusively as proof of the elements referred to in paragraph 3. Any refusal to recognise a guarantee of origin as such proof, in particular for reasons relating to the prevention of fraud, must be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria. In the event of refusal to recognise a guarantee of origin, the Commission may compel the refusing party to recognise it, particularly with regard to objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria on which such recognition is based. (5) Member States or the competent bodies shall put in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure that guarantees of origin are both accurate and reliable and they shall outline in the report referred to in Article 3(3) the measures taken to ensure the reliability of the guarantee system. (6) After having consulted the Member States, the Commission shall, in the report referred to in Article 8, consider the form and methods that Member States could follow in order to guarantee the origin of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. If necessary, the Commission shall propose to the European Parliament and the Council the adoption of common rules in this respect.’
6

Article 54 of that directive, entitled ‘Professional Secrecy’, states: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities, all persons who work or who have worked for the competent authorities … are bound by the obligation of professional secrecy. No confidential information which they may receive in the course of their duties may be divulged to any person or authority whatsoever, save in summary or aggregate form such that individual investment firms, market operators, regulated markets or any other person cannot be identified, without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law or the other provisions of this Directive. 2. Where an investment firm … has been declared bankrupt or is being compulsorily wound up, confidential information which does not concern third parties may be divulged in civil or commercial proceedings if necessary for carrying out the proceeding. 3. Without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law, the competent authorities … which receive confidential information pursuant to this Directive may use it only in the performance of their duties and for the exercise of their functions … However, where the competent authority or other authority, body or person communicating information consents thereto, the authority receiving the information may use it for other purposes. 4. Any confidential information received, exchanged or transmitted pursuant to this Directive shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy laid down in this Article. Nevertheless, this Article shall not prevent the competent authorities from exchanging or transmitting confidential information … with the consent of the competent authority or other authority or body or natural or legal person that communicated the information. 5. This Article shall not prevent the competent authorities from exchanging or transmitting in accordance with national law, confidential information that has not been received from a competent authority of another Member State.’
21

Rule 216 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, in the version currently in force, sets out the actions to be taken in relation to the petitions which are examined by the Committee on Petitions ‘in the course of its normal activity’, where appropriate in the presence of the petitioner, to whom the right to speak is to be granted at the discretion of the chairperson of that committee. The Committee on Petitions may decide to draw up an own-initiative report or, with the agreement of the Conference of Presidents, a short motion for a resolution. It is, in certain cases, required to cooperate with other committees, may request assistance from the European Commission, and may decide to organise fact-finding visits to the Member State or region concerned by the petition in question. The Committee on Petitions may ask the President of the Parliament to forward its opinion or recommendation to the Commission, the Council of the European Union or the Member State concerned for action or response. The Committee on Petitions is required to inform the Parliament every six months of the outcome of its deliberations and, in particular, of the measures taken by the Council or the Commission on petitions referred to them. The petitioner is to be informed of the decision taken by the Committee on Petitions and the reasons for that decision. When consideration of an admissible petition has been concluded, it is to be declared closed and the petitioner informed accordingly.
15

Under Article 1(1) and (4) of the Decree of the Minister for the Environment, the Protection of Natural Resources and the Sea of 17 December 2009: ‘1. The waste traceability monitoring system, hereinafter also referred to as ‘the SISTRI’, managed by the Environmental Protection Division of the Carabinieri (Comando carabinieri per la Tutela dell’Ambiente), shall apply: (a) with effect from the one hundred and eightieth day following the entry into force of the present Decree, to original producers of hazardous waste — including that referred to in Article 212(8) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006] — with more than 50 employees; to undertakings and bodies that are original producers of non-hazardous waste, as referred to in Article 184(3)(c), (d) and (g) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006], with more than 50 employees; to dealers and intermediaries; to consortia established for the recovery and recycling of particular types of waste which handle the management of such waste on behalf of the consortia members; to the undertakings referred to in Article 212(5) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006] which collect and transport special waste; to the undertakings and bodies which carry out waste recovery and disposal operations; and to the persons referred to in Article 5(10) of the present Decree, (b) from the two hundred and tenth day following the entry into force of the present Decree, to the undertakings and bodies which are original producers of hazardous waste — including those referred to in Article 212(8) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006] — which have up to 50 employees and to original producers of non-hazardous waste as referred to in Article 184(3)(c), (d) and (g) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006] which have between 11 and 50 employees. ... 4. Undertakings and bodies which are original producers of non-hazardous waste as referred to in Article 184(3)(c), (d) and (g) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006] which do not have more than 10 employees, undertakings which collect and transport their own non-hazardous waste as referred to in Article 212(8) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006] and farmers as referred to in Article 2135 of the Civil Code who produce non-hazardous waste and undertakings and bodies which are original producers of non-hazardous waste derived from activities other than those referred to in Article 184(3)(c), (d) and (g) of Legislative Decree [No 152/2006] may participate on a voluntary basis in the SISTRI from the date referred to in paragraph 1(b).’