ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
34

In respect of the context in which that question arises, it is apparent from the file before the Court and from the judgments of the Court relating to the relevant Hungarian legislation (see, to that effect, judgments of 3 December 2015, Banif Plus Bank, C‑312/14, EU:C:2015:794, paragraphs 43 and 44, and of 20 September 2018, OTP Bank and OTP Faktoring, C‑51/17, EU:C:2018:750, paragraphs 26 and 27) that, in the wake of the judgment of 30 April 2014, Kásler and Káslerné Rábai (C‑26/13, EU:C:2014:282), the Kúria (Supreme Court) delivered its decision No 2/2014 PJE (Magyar Közlöny 2014/91, p. 10975) in the interest of uniformity of civil law and concerning loan agreements concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers. According to that decision, the terms relating to the exchange difference in loan agreements denominated in foreign currency, in so far as they provide for an asymmetry between the buying rate of exchange for that currency applied when the loan was paid out and its selling rate of exchange applied for the calculation of the monthly instalments of the loan repayments, must be regarded as unfair, since, in particular, the bank receives from the consumer remuneration equal to the difference between those rates without providing it with a service in return. On the other hand, as regards terms relating to the exchange risk, which have the effect that the risk of an increase in the value of that currency is borne solely by the consumer in return for a more advantageous interest rate than that offered for a loan denominated in national currency, that decision states that those terms cannot be reviewed as to their unfairness, given that, in principle, they relate to the main subject matter of the agreement, within the meaning of the national legislation transposing Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13.
36

In those circumstances, the Cour administrative (Higher Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 20(2)(a) of Directive 2011/16 be interpreted as meaning that where a request for exchange of information formulated by an authority of a requesting Member State designates the taxpayers to which it relates simply by reference to their status as shareholders and beneficial owners of a company, without those taxpayers having been identified by the requesting authority in advance, individually and by name, the request satisfies the identification requirements laid down by that provision? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(1) and Article 5 of that directive be interpreted as meaning that the standard of foreseeable relevance may be met, if the requesting Member State, in order to establish that it is not engaged in a fishing expedition, despite the fact that it has not individually identified the taxpayers concerned, provides a clear and sufficient explanation evidencing that it is conducting a targeted investigation into a limited group of persons, and not simply an investigation by way of general fiscal surveillance, and that its investigation is justified by reasonable suspicions of non-compliance with a specific legal obligation? (3) Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, where – a person who has had imposed upon him [or her] by the competent authority of a Member State an administrative financial penalty for non-compliance with an administrative decision, requiring him [or her] to provide information in connection with an exchange of information between national tax authorities pursuant to Directive 2011/16, where the national law of the requested Member State does not make provision for an action to be brought against the latter decision, and where the person concerned has challenged the legality of that decision within an action brought against the financial penalty, and – has only obtained disclosure of the minimal information referred to in Article 20(2) of Directive 2011/16 in the course of the judicial procedure set in motion by the bringing of that action, that person is entitled, in the event of a definitive incidental finding upholding the validity of the decision requiring the requested information and of the decision imposing a fine on him [or her], to a period of grace for the payment of that fine, so that he [or she] has an opportunity, having thus been given disclosure of the material supporting the contention – definitively accepted by the competent court – that the test of foreseeable relevance is met, to comply with the decision requiring the requested information?’
77

Secondly, as regards the legislative amendments criticised by the referring court and referred to in paragraphs 28 and 29 above, which successively affected Article 44 of the Law on the KRS, it must be pointed out that, since the present request for a preliminary ruling was made, the Court has held, inter alia, in the operative part of the judgment in A.B. and Others, that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as precluding provisions amending the state of national law in force under which: – notwithstanding the fact that a candidate for a position as judge at a court such as the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) lodges an appeal against the decision of a body such as the KRS not to accept his or her application, but to put forward that of other candidates to the President of the Republic, that decision is final inasmuch as it puts forward those other candidates, with the result that that appeal does not preclude the appointment of those other candidates by the President of the Republic and that any annulment of that decision inasmuch as it did not put forward the appellant for appointment may not lead to a fresh assessment of the appellant’s situation for the purposes of any assignment of the position concerned, and – moreover, such an appeal may not be based on an allegation that there was an incorrect assessment of the candidates’ fulfilment of the criteria taken into account when a decision on the presentation of the proposal for appointment was made, where it is apparent – a matter which the Court invited the referring court in the case which gave rise to that judgment to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors – that those provisions are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of the judges thus appointed, by the President of the Republic, on the basis of the decisions of the KRS, to external factors, in particular, to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive, and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them and, thus, may lead to those judges not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in subjects of the law.
23

Article 9 of Decree-Law No 49/2003, entitled ‘Reimbursement of the excess levy’, provides: ‘1. At the end of every period, the AGEA: (a) shall draw up a statement of the deliveries of milk made and the total levy paid by the purchasers in accordance with the performance of the obligations set out in Article 5; (b) shall calculate the total national levy payable to the European Union for excess production in the deliveries; (c) shall calculate the amount of the excess levy. … 3. The amount referred to in paragraph 1(c), less the provision referred to in paragraph 2, shall be shared among producers holding a quota that have paid the levy, in accordance with the following criteria and in order: (a) producers who have been wrongly charged all or part of the levy applied to them or from whom it is no longer due; (b) producers owning holdings situated in mountain areas (c) producers owning holdings situated in less-favoured areas … (c bis) producers who, pursuant to a decision by the competent health authority and for at least 90 days during a marketing period, have been subject to a prohibition on the movement of animals in areas affected by extensive infectious diseases, and who have therefore been required to produce a quantity higher …. 4. If the sum of those reimbursements is less than the amount referred to in paragraph 3, the remainder shall be shared among producers holding a quota who have paid the levy, except for those who have exceeded their own individual reference quantity by more than 100 per cent, in accordance with the following criteria and in order …’
Agriculture – EAGF and EAFRD financing – Clearance of accounts – Limitation of refusal of financing – Twenty-four month period – Point from which time starts to run – Communication by the Commission of the results of verifications – Date of payment of the aid to be taken into consideration for calculating the period – Date of payment of the balance of the aid

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013, Art. 52(4)(c); Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31(4)(c))

(see para. 52)
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 June 2021 – WD v EFSA

(Case C‑167/20 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Fixed-term contract – Decision not to reclassify – Lack of appraisal reports – Decision not to renew the contract)

Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract – Administration’s discretion – Scope – Obligation to take account of the agent’s performance – Absence – Right of priority of the person concerned over other staff if reassignment to another post is possible – Absence

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8)

(see paras 59-62, 84)

Operative part

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders WD to bear her own costs relating to the appeal and pay those incurred by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

( 1 ) OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Appeal – Admissibility – Decisions against which an appeal may be brought – Decision of the General Court not to rule on a plea of inadmissibility against an action dismissed as unfounded – Not included

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 23-25)
16

Article 57 of that Regulation, entitled ‘Introduction and reintroduction of personal or household effects into [the Union]’, states: ‘1. The derogation from Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 for personal or household effects, provided for in Article 7(3) of that Regulation, shall not apply to specimens used for commercial gain, sold, displayed for commercial purposes, kept for sale, offered for sale or transported for sale. … 3. The first introduction into the [Union] of personal or household effects, including hunting trophies, by a person normally residing in the [Union] and involving specimens of species listed in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 shall not require the presentation to customs of an import permit, provided that the original of a (re-)export document and a copy thereof are presented. … 4. The reintroduction into the [Union], by a person normally residing in the Community, of personal or household effects, including hunting trophies, that are specimens of species listed in Annex A or B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 shall not require the presentation to customs of an import permit, provided that one of the following is presented: (a) the customs-endorsed “copy for the holder” (form 2) of a previously used Community import or export permit; (b) the copy of the (re-)export document referred to in paragraph 3; (c) proof that the specimens were acquired within the [Union]. 5. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 4, the introduction or reintroduction into the Community of the following items listed in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 shall not require the presentation of a (re-)export document or an import permit: (a) caviar of sturgeon species (Acipenseriformes spp.), up to a maximum of 125 grams per person, in containers individually marked … …’
35

Whilst an economic operator cannot evade EU law by invoking its contractual obligations, the customs value of imported goods nevertheless cannot be determined in the abstract. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, it is determined on the basis of the conditions on which the sale concerned was made, even if they do not accord with trade practice or may appear unusual for the type of contract in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 February 1986, Van Houten International, 65/85, EU:C:1986:53, paragraph 13). Thus, the Court has held that, in order to determine whether the customs value of the imported goods reflects their real economic value, the specific legal circumstances of the parties to the contract of sale should be taken into account (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 July 2010, Gaston Schul, C‑354/09, EU:C:2010:439, paragraph 38). Accordingly, failure to take account of the conditions of sale when determining the customs value of those goods would not only be contrary to Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code and Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code, but would moreover lead to a result that does not enable the real economic value of the goods to be reflected.
19

Part One of the CN, containing the ‘preliminary provisions’, includes a Section I on ‘General rules’, subsection A of which, entitled ‘General rules for the interpretation of the [CN]’, provides: ‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles. 1. The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions. 2. … (b) Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods of a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of rule 3. 3. When, by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods …, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods; (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components …, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable; …’
3

Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) (‘the Community Customs Code’) provided, in paragraphs 1 to 3 and 6 thereof: ‘1. Duties legally owed where a customs debt is incurred shall be based on the Customs Tariff of the European Communities. 2. The other measures prescribed by Community provisions governing specific fields relating to trade in goods shall, where appropriate, be applied according to the tariff classification of those goods. 3. The Customs Tariff of the European Communities shall comprise: (a) the combined nomenclature of goods; (b) any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on the combined nomenclature or which adds any subdivisions to it, and which is established by Community provisions governing specific fields with a view to the application of tariff measures relating to trade in goods; … 6. The tariff classification of goods shall be the determination, according to the rules in force, of: (a) the subheading of the combined nomenclature or the subheading of any other nomenclature referred to in paragraph 3(b); or (b) the subheading of any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on the combined nomenclature or which adds any subdivisions to it, and which is established by Community provisions governing specific fields with a view to the application of measures other than tariff measures relating to trade in goods, under which the aforesaid goods are to be classified.’
28

In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Sofia Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Can the supply of audiovisual media services to viewers by the public television broadcaster be regarded as a service supplied for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of [the VAT Directive] if it is financed by the State in the form of subsidies, with the viewers paying no fees for the broadcasting, or does it not constitute a service supplied for consideration within the meaning of that provision and not fall within the scope of that Directive? (2) If the answer is that the audiovisual media services provided to viewers by the public television broadcaster fall within the scope of Article 2(1)(c) of [the VAT Directive], can it then be considered that exempt transactions for the purposes of Article 132(1)(q) of the Directive are involved, and is a national regulation which exempts this activity solely on the basis of the payment from the State budget received by the public television broadcaster, regardless of whether that activity is also of a commercial nature, permissible? (3) Is a practice which makes a full right of input tax deduction for purchases dependent not solely on the use of the purchases (for taxable or non-taxable activity), but also on the way in which those purchases are financed, namely on the one hand from self-generated income (advertising services inter alia), and on the other hand from State subsidisation, and which grants the right to full input tax deduction only for purchases financed from self-generated income and not for those financed through State subsidies, with the delimitation thereof being required, permissible pursuant to Article 168 of [the VAT Directive]? (4) If it is considered that the activity of the public television broadcaster consists of taxable and exempt transactions, having regard to its mixed financing, what is the scope of the right to input tax deduction in respect of those purchases and which criteria must be applied for the determination thereof[?]’
17

The Veneto Region brought an appeal against that judgment before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), which, after having ascertained that, inter alia, the waste in question had undergone treatment which had not substantially altered its original properties as municipal waste, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘In a case where mixed municipal waste which does not contain hazardous waste has been mechanically treated at a facility for the purpose of energy recovery (operation R1/R12 under Annex C to [Legislative Decree No 152/2006]) and, following the treatment operation, it appears, in theory, that the treatment has not substantially altered the original properties of the mixed municipal waste, to which is assigned the [EWC code] 19 12 12, which the parties do not contest; for the purpose of the judgment as to the legitimacy of the objections to the request for prior consent for shipment of the treated waste to a production facility in a Member State of the European Union for use in co-combustion or other means of generating energy, raised by the competent authority in the country of origin on the basis of the principles of [Directive 2008/98], and specifically objections such as those, in this case, based: on the principle of protection of human health and the environment (Article 13); on the principle of self-sufficiency and proximity laid down in Article 16(1) …; on the principle, also laid down in the final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 16(1) …; on recital 33 …[:] 1. does the [EWC] and its classifications (in the present case, [code] 19 12 12 [of that catalogue], designating waste produced by mechanical treatment facilities for recovery operations R1/R12), interfere – and, if so, in what terms and to what extent – with the rules [of EU law] on the shipment of waste which, prior to mechanical treatment, was mixed municipal waste; 2. and, in particular, with regard to shipments of waste resulting from the treatment of mixed municipal waste, do the provisions of Article 16 of [Directive 2008/98] and recital 33 thereof, specifically concerning the shipment of waste, take precedence over the classification based on the [EWC]; 3. specifying, if the Court of Justice deems it appropriate and useful, whether that catalogue is regulatory in nature or whether it is simply a technical certification intended for the uniform traceability of all waste?’
6

Paragraph 9(1) and (3) of the Law on the taxation of alcohol and alcoholic beverages, in the version applicable as of 1 January 2015, provides: ‘If the taxable person can reliably demonstrate that the beer was brewed in an undertaking that is legally and economically independent of other undertakings, is situated physically apart from other breweries and does not carry out production under licence, and the volume of beer produced by that undertaking in a calendar year does not exceed 15000000 litres, the alcoholic beverage tax payable on the beer is to be reduced: (1) by 50 per cent in so far as the volume of beer produced by the brewery in a calendar year does not exceed 500000 litres; (2) by 30 per cent in so far as the volume of beer produced by the brewery in a calendar year exceeds 500000 litres but does not exceed 3000000 litres; (3) by 20 per cent in so far as the volume of beer produced by the brewery in a calendar year exceeds 3000000 litres but does not exceed 5500000 litres; (4) by 10 per cent in so far as the volume of beer produced by the brewery in a calendar year exceeds 5500000 litres but does not exceed 10000000 litres. … If two or more breweries referred to in the first subparagraph cooperate with each other in production or at the operational level, that is not to be taken to mean that there is legal or economic dependence between them. Cooperation in production and at the operational level means the supply of raw materials and equipment necessary for the production of beer as well as the packaging, marketing and distribution of beer. However, the application of this subparagraph is subject to the condition that the total volume of beer produced by the breweries in the calendar year does not exceed 15000000 litres.’