ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
10.

According to Article 17 of the Directive: ‘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. Member States may provide for such circumstances also to include the application or otherwise of a restraint of trade clause, within the meaning of Article 20; (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 amortize the costs and expenses that he had incurred for the performance of the agency contract on the principal’s advice. 4. Entitlement to the indemnity as provided for in paragraph 2 or to compensation for damage as provided for under paragraph 3, shall also arise where the agency contract is terminated as a result of the commercial agent’s death. 5. The commercial agent shall lose his entitlement to the indemnity in the instances provided for in paragraph 2 or to compensation for damage in the instances provided for in paragraph 3, if within one year following termination of the contract he has not notified the principal that he intends pursuing his entitlement. 6. The Commission shall submit to the Council, within eight years following the date of notification of this Directive, a report on the implementation of this Article, and shall if necessary submit to it proposals for amendments.’
20.

Article 193 of the codice delle assicurazioni private (Private Insurance Code), ( 10 ) in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, provided: ‘1. Insurance undertakings with their head office in other Member States shall be subject to the prudential supervision of the home Member State authority, including in the case of business carried on under the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services in the territory of the Republic. 2. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1, where the [ISVAP] ( 11 ) finds that the insurance undertaking is not compliant with the provisions of Italian law in force, it shall notify the undertaking of that infringement and order it to comply with the laws in force. 3. If the undertaking is not compliant with the laws in force, the [ISVAP] shall so inform the supervisory authority of the home Member State, and ask it to adopt the measures necessary to put an end to the irregularities found. 4. Where the home State authority fails to take action or the action taken proves inadequate, where the irregularities committed may adversely affect the general interest or where there is an urgent need to protect the interests of insured persons and other persons entitled to insurance benefits, the [ISVAP] may, after first informing the supervisory authority of the home Member State, take the necessary action against the insurance undertaking, including prohibiting it from concluding new insurance contracts under the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services, with the effects referred to in Article 167. 5. If the insurance undertaking which has committed the infringement carries on its business through a branch or owns assets in the territory of the Republic, the administrative penalties applicable under Italian law shall be imposed on that branch or shall take the form of confiscation of the assets present in Italian territory. 6. Measures imposing penalties or restrictions on the pursuit of business under the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services shall be notified to the undertaking concerned. In its dealings with the [ISVAP], the insurance undertaking shall communicate in Italian.’
14.

Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation, which comes under Section V thereof under the heading ‘Detention for the purpose of transfer’ is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. 2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, [ ( 4 )] Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. 3. Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge or take back request shall not exceed one month from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply in such cases. Such reply shall be given within two weeks of receipt of the request. Failure to reply within the two-week period shall be tantamount to accepting the request and shall entail the obligation to take charge or take back the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within six weeks of the implicit or explicit acceptance of the request by another Member State to take charge or to take back the person concerned or of the moment when the appeal or review no longer has a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 27(3). When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge or take back request or where the transfer does not take place within the period of six weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 21, 23, 24 and 29 shall continue to apply accordingly. 4. As regards the detention conditions and the guarantees applicable to persons detained, in order to secure the transfer procedures to the Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply.’
6.

Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court bears the title ‘Modification of the application’ and, in the version applicable to the relevant proceedings before the General Court, ( 4 ) reads as follows: ‘(1) Where a measure the annulment of which is sought is replaced or amended by another measure with the same subject matter, the applicant may, before the oral part of the procedure is closed, or before the decision of the General Court to rule without an oral part of the procedure, modify the application to take account of that new factor. (2) The modification of the application must be made by a separate document within the time limit laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU within which the annulment of the measure justifying the modification of the application may be sought. (3) The statement of modification shall contain: (a) the modified form of order sought; (b) where appropriate, the modified pleas in law and arguments; (c) where appropriate, the evidence produced and offered in connection with the modification of the form of order sought. (4) The statement of modification must be accompanied by the measure justifying the modification of the application. If that measure is not produced, the Registrar shall prescribe a reasonable time limit within which the applicant is to produce it. If the applicant fails to produce the measure within the time limit prescribed, the General Court shall decide whether the non-compliance with that requirement renders the statement modifying the application inadmissible. (5) Without prejudice to the decision to be taken by the General Court on the admissibility of the statement modifying the application, the President shall prescribe a time limit within which the defendant may respond to the statement of modification. …’
13.

Article 12(1) and (2) of Directive 91/477 read as follows: ‘1. If the procedure provided for in Article 11 is not employed, the possession of a firearm during a journey through two or more Member States shall not be permitted unless the person concerned has obtained the authorisation of each of those Member States. Member States may grant such authorisation for one or more journeys for a maximum period of one year, subject to renewal. Such authorisations shall be entered on the … pass, which the traveller must produce whenever so required by the authorities of the Member States. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, hunters, in respect of categories C and D, and marksmen, in respect of category B, C and D, may, without prior authorisation, be in possession of one or more firearms during a journey through two or more Member States with a view to engaging in their activities, provided that they are in possession of a … pass listing such firearm or firearms and provided that they are able to substantiate the reasons for their journey, in particular by producing an invitation or other proof of their hunting or target shooting activities in the Member State of destination. Member States may not make acceptance of a… pass conditional upon the payment of any fee or charge. However, this derogation shall not apply to journeys to a Member State which prohibits the acquisition and possession of the firearm in question or which, pursuant to Article 8(3), makes it subject to authorisation; in that case, an express statement to that effect shall be entered on the … pass. …’
17.

The Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal, The Hague, Netherlands) has therefore referred the following questions to the Court: ‘Question 1 (1.1) Is a retailer which sends back an object returned by a consumer, or an object in its product range that has become redundant, to its supplier (namely the importer, wholesaler, distributor, producer or anyone else from whom it has obtained the object) pursuant to the agreement between the retailer and its supplier to be regarded as a holder which discards the object, within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the [Waste] Directive? (1.2) Would the answer to question 1.1 be different if the object is one which has an easily repairable fault or defect? (1.3) Would the answer to question 1.1 be different if the object is one which has a fault or defect of such extent or severity that it is, as a result, no longer suitable or usable for its original purpose? Question 2 (2.1) Is a retailer or supplier which sells on an object returned by a consumer, or an object in its product range which has become redundant, to a buyer (of residual consignments) to be regarded as a holder which discards the object, within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the [Waste] Directive? (2.2) Is the answer to question 2.1 affected by the amount of the purchase price to be paid by the buyer to the retailer or supplier? (2.3) Would the answer to question 2.1 be different if the object is one which has an easily repairable fault or defect? (2.4) Would the answer to question 2.1 be different if the object is one which has a fault or defect of such extent or severity that it is, as a result, no longer suitable or usable for its original purpose? Question 3 (3.1) Is the buyer which sells on to a (foreign) third party a large consignment of goods bought from retailers and suppliers and returned by consumers, and/or goods that have become redundant, to be regarded as a holder which discards a consignment of goods, within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the [Waste] Directive? (3.2) Is the answer to question 3.1 affected by the amount of the purchase price to be paid by the third party to the buyer? (3.3) Would the answer to question 3.1 be different if the consignment of goods also contains some goods which have an easily repairable fault or defect? (3.4) Would the answer to question 3.1 be different if the consignment of goods also contains some goods which have a fault or defect of such extent or severity that the object in question is no longer, as a result, suitable or usable for its original purpose? (3.5) Is the answer to questions 3.3 or 3.4 affected by the percentage of the whole consignment of the goods sold on to the third party that is made up of defective goods? If so, what percentage is the tipping point?’
8.

In the same chapter, Article 68 of Regulation No 883/2004 lays down the priority rules in the event of overlapping entitlements: ‘1. Where, during the same period and for the same family members, benefits are provided for under the legislation of more than one Member State the following priority rules shall apply: (a) in the case of benefits payable by more than one Member State on different bases, the order of priority shall be as follows: firstly, rights available on the basis of an activity as an employed or self-employed person, secondly, rights available on the basis of receipt of a pension and finally, rights obtained on the basis of residence; (b) in the case of benefits payable by more than one Member State on the same basis, the order of priority shall be established by referring to the following subsidiary criteria: (i) in the case of rights available on the basis of an activity as an employed or self-employed person: the place of residence of the children, provided that there is such activity, and additionally, where appropriate, the highest amount of the benefits provided for by the conflicting legislations. In the latter case, the cost of benefits shall be shared in accordance with criteria laid down in the Implementing Regulation; … 2. In the case of overlapping entitlements, family benefits shall be provided in accordance with the legislation designated as having priority in accordance with paragraph 1. Entitlements to family benefits by virtue of other conflicting legislation or legislations shall be suspended up to the amount provided for by the first legislation and a differential supplement shall be provided, if necessary, for the sum which exceeds this amount. … …’
8.

Section 2.2 of the Skatteministeriets vejledning om moms på salg af nye bygninger og byggegrunde (Instruction of the Ministry of Taxation on VAT on the sale of new buildings and building land) reads as follows: ‘The supply of buildings and the land on which the buildings stand is not subject to VAT where they are not new buildings. If the supply is made for the purpose of the construction of a new building, however, the supply shall be considered to be a supply of building land. ... If it is agreed that the building will be demolished by the seller or if it appears from the contract of sale that the buildings are acquired for demolition by the buyer, it is a sale of building land. In other cases, the buyer’s intention cannot be decisive in assessing whether there is a supply of building land. The criteria that may be taken into account, on an individual or combined basis, to determine whether building land is being supplied may be, for example, the price fixed in the contract of sale in comparison with the normal value of similar goods, the nature of the construction (“shed”), a lack of connection to public/commercial services, the previous use of the property and the nature of the construction (e.g. a “barn” for storage which does not meet very basic conditions for future use). If it is concluded that the supply was made for purpose of the construction of a new building, the supply shall be considered to be a supply of building land. …’
80.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court answer the request for a preliminary ruling put to it by the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Magistrates’ Court, Antwerp, Belgium), as regards the second question only, in the following terms: Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts does not lay down the conditions for the formation of a contract and the rules on unfair terms contained therein apply, in principle, solely to legal relationships of a contractual nature to be classified by the national court on the basis of domestic law. In the case of a passenger who makes use of a transport service without having purchased a ticket and who, as a consequence of that behaviour, is required to pay a surcharge, the national court will have to classify, on the basis of domestic law, the contractual nature or otherwise of the relationship and assess whether the rules on unfair terms can apply to any relationship between sellers and suppliers and consumers, including those of a non-contractual nature. Furthermore, the assessment of the unfairness of the term requiring payment of a surcharge for failure to purchase beforehand and failure subsequently to remedy the situation, as provided for in the general conditions of carriage, will have to be carried out by establishing, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 93/13, that there has been a significant imbalance in the positions of the parties, also in the light of the fact that interests of a public and private nature are interlinked in such a case and having regard to all the circumstances of the specific case and, in particular, the unlawful nature of the consumer’s conduct.
9.

Article 52 of Regulation No 1107/2009, entitled ‘Parallel trade’, provides: ‘1. A plant protection product that is authorised in one Member State (Member State of origin) may, subject to granting a parallel trade permit, be introduced, placed on the market or used in another Member State (Member State of introduction), if this Member State determines that the plant protection product is identical in composition to a plant protection product already authorised in its territory (reference product). The application shall be submitted to the competent authority of the Member State of introduction. 2. From receiving a complete application, a parallel trade permit shall be granted in a simplified procedure within 45 working days if the plant protection product to be introduced is identical in terms of paragraph 3. Member States shall on request provide each other with the information necessary to assess whether the products are identical within 10 working days of receiving the request. The procedure for granting a parallel trade permit is interrupted from the day the request for information is sent to the competent authority of the Member State of origin until the complete information required is delivered to the competent authority of the Member State of introduction. 3. Plant protection products shall be considered as identical to the reference products if: (a) they have been manufactured by the same company or by an associated undertaking or under licence in accordance with the same manufacturing process; (b) they are identical in specification and content to the active substances, safeners and synergists, and in the type of formulation; and (c) they are either the same or equivalent in the co-formulants present and the packaging size, material or form, in terms of the potential adverse impact on the safety of the product with regard to human or animal health or the environment. … 6. The parallel trade permit shall be valid for the duration of authorisation of the reference product. If the authorisation holder of the reference product applies for a withdrawal of authorisation in accordance with Article 45(1) and the requirements of Article 29 are still fulfilled, the validity of the parallel trade permit shall expire by the date on which the authorisation of the reference product would normally have expired. 7. Without prejudice to specific provisions of this Article, Articles 44, 45, 46, and 55 and Article 56(4) and Chapters VI to X shall apply to parallel traded plant protection products correspondingly. 8. Without prejudice to Article 44, a parallel trade permit may be withdrawn if the authorisation of the introduced plant protection product is withdrawn in the Member State of origin because of safety or efficacy reasons. 9. Where the product is not identical, in terms of paragraph 3, to the reference product, the Member State of introduction may only grant the authorisation required for placing on the market and use in accordance with Article 29. …’
7.

According to the information provided by the Belgian Government, the wet van 19 december 2003 betreffende het Europees aanhoudingsbevel (Law of 19 December 2003 on the EAW) ( 7 ) stipulates as follows in Article 32: ( 8 ) ‘1. Where it is reasonable to assume that a person requested for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, the examining magistrate, or the Public Prosecutor enforcing the arrest warrant issued by the court, shall issue an [EAW] in the manner and on the conditions established in Articles 2 and 3. An [EAW] issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution may only be issued under the conditions established by the Law of 20 July 1990 on preventive detention. … 2. Where it is reasonable to assume that a person requested for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or detention order is in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, the Public Prosecutor shall issue an [EAW] in the manner and on the conditions established in Articles 2 and 3. If, in this case, the custodial sentence or detention order has been imposed by a decision rendered in absentia, and if the requested person has not been summoned in person or otherwise informed of the date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia, the [EAW] shall state that the requested person will have an opportunity to challenge the decision in Belgium and to be present at the judgment. …’