ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
5

Part One of the CN consists of a number of preliminary provisions. In Section I of Part One, which contains ‘General rules’, subsection A, 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. ... 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 or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, 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; ... 6. For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section and chapter notes also apply, unless the context requires otherwise.’
7

Paragraph 17 of the Law on protection against unfair dismissal (Kündigungsschutzgesetz, ‘KSchG’), which lays down the requirement to give a collective redundancies notice, is worded as follows: ‘(1) The employer is under an obligation to notify the Employment Agency before it makes redundant: 1. more than 5 workers in establishments normally employing more than 20 and less than 60 workers; … over a period of 30 calendar days. Any other termination of an employment relationship brought about by the employer shall be assimilated to redundancy. (2) If the employer contemplates making redundancies that are subject to the obligation to issue a notification under subparagraph 1 it shall promptly provide the works council with the appropriate information and notify it in writing, in particular, of: 1. the reasons for the projected redundancies; 2. the number and professional categories of workers to be made redundant; 3. the number and professional categories of workers normally employed; 4. the period over which the redundancies are expected to take place; 5. the proposed criteria for selecting the workers to be made redundant; 6. the proposed criteria for calculating any redundancy payments. … (3) The employer must simultaneously forward to the Employment Agency a copy of the notice given to the works council; this must contain at least the details stated in points 1 to 5 of the first sentence of subparagraph 2. … (5) The following shall not be regarded as workers for the purposes of this paragraph: 1. in establishments of one legal person, the members of the body that is responsible for the legal representation of that person; 2. in unincorporated associations without a legal personality, the persons entitled under the law, the statutes or by the articles of association to represent that association; 3. company directors, managers of the establishment and other persons holding analogous managerial posts, in so far as they are themselves authorised to take decisions relating to the recruitment and dismissal of workers.’
5

Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 states: ‘1. The limitation period for proceedings shall be four years as from the time when the irregularity referred to in Article 1(1) was committed. However, the sectoral rules may make provision for a shorter period which may not be less than three years. In the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, the limitation period shall run from the day on which the irregularity ceases. In the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated. The limitation period shall be interrupted by any act of the competent authority, notified to the person in question, relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity. The limitation period shall start again following each interrupting act. However, limitation shall become effective at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty, except where the administrative procedure has been suspended in accordance with Article 6(1). ... 3. Member States shall retain the possibility of applying a period which is longer than that provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 respectively.’
11

Under Article 14 of that directive, entitled ‘Retention of the right of residence’: ‘1. Union citizens and their family members shall have the right of residence provided for in Article 6, as long as they do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State. 2. Union citizens and their family members shall have the right of residence provided for in Articles 7, 12 and 13 as long as they meet the conditions set out therein. In specific cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to whether a Union citizen or his/her family members satisfies the conditions set out in Articles 7, 12 and 13, Member States may verify if these conditions are fulfilled. This verification shall not be carried out systematically. 3. An expulsion measure shall not be the automatic consequence of a Union citizen’s or his or her family member’s recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State. 4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2 and without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VI, an expulsion measure may in no case be adopted against Union citizens or their family members if: (a) the Union citizens are workers or self-employed persons, or (b) the Union citizens entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment. In this case, the Union citizens and their family members may not be expelled for as long as the Union citizens can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged.’
3

Article 5 of that decision provides: ‘1. Europol shall have the following principal tasks: (a) to collect, store, process, analyse and exchange information and intelligence; (b) to notify the competent authorities of the Member States without delay via the national unit referred to in Article 8 of information concerning them and of any connections identified between criminal offences; (c) to aid investigations in the Member States, in particular by forwarding all relevant information to the national units; (d) to ask the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to initiate, conduct or coordinate investigations and to suggest the setting up of joint investigation teams in specific cases; (e) to provide intelligence and analytical support to Member States in connection with major international events; (f) to prepare threat assessments, strategic analyses and general situation reports relating to its objective, including organised crime threat assessments. 2. The tasks referred to in paragraph 1 shall include providing support to Member States in their tasks of gathering and analysing information from the Internet in order to assist in the identification of criminal activities facilitated by or committed using the Internet. 3. Europol shall have the following additional tasks: (a) to develop specialist knowledge of the investigative procedures of the competent authorities of the Member States and to provide advice on investigations; (b) to provide strategic intelligence to assist and promote the efficient and effective use of the resources available at national and Union level for operational activities and the support of such activities. 4. Additionally, in the context of its objective under Article 3, Europol may, in accordance with the staffing and budgetary resources at its disposal and within the limits set by the Management Board, assist Member States through support, advice and research in the following areas: (a) the training of members of their competent authorities, where appropriate in cooperation with the European Police College; (b) the organisation and equipment of those authorities by facilitating the provision of technical support between the Member States; (c) crime prevention methods; (d) technical and forensic methods and analysis, and investigative procedures. 5. Europol shall also act as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting in accordance with Council Decision 2005/511/JHA of 12 July 2005 on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting … Europol may also encourage the coordination of measures carried out in order to fight euro counterfeiting by the competent authorities of the Member States or in the context of joint investigation teams, where appropriate in liaison with Union entities and third States’ bodies. Upon request, Europol may financially support investigations of euro counterfeiting.’
15

Article 3 of that decree, entitled ‘Documents required to substantiate the calculations of the justifiable loss’, provides: ‘(1) The universal service provider shall submit to the Czech telecommunications regulatory authority, along with the calculation of the justifiable loss for the corresponding year, the following: (a) the balance sheet drawn up in accordance with the applicable rules; (b) the analytical accounts of the costs and revenue; (c) the results of the separate accounts of the costs and revenue, drawn up in accordance with Article 34(2)(a) of the [Telecommunications] Law and with the methods for determining the amount of the economically justified costs; data concerning the loss-making services shall be broken down according to the different costs and revenue items in accordance with the structure set out in Annex No 1; (d) an overview of the distribution of tangible and intangible capital assets in the depreciation profiles, using a coefficient for accelerated depreciation and indicating the methods for classifying equity capital allocated to the purchase of those assets; (e) an overview of the discounts given, according to type. (2) The universal service provider shall allow the Czech telecommunications regulatory authority, on request, to verify the data relating to the calculation of the justifiable loss, including the calculation of reasonable profit, on the basis, inter alia, of the technical documentation, statistics and original accounting documents. (3) The recording of the justifiable loss, the documents sent by the universal service provider and the documents used to verify the calculation of the justifiable loss shall be retained by the Czech telecommunications regulatory authority for a period of five years from the end of the relevant year.’
22

That action was upheld on the ground that a single fee of EUR 600 is payable for a single variation to be made at the same time to all the authorisations in force. The court at first instance relied on the provision which states that ‘the fee shall cover all authorised strengths, pharmaceutical forms and presentations’, which appears in both Annex 3 to the Decree of the Minister for Health of 24 May 2004 and in Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 297/95. That court took the view that the latter provision also covered situations in which one and the same variation applies to several marketing authorisations. It was of the view that that interpretation was consistent with recital 6 in the preamble to Regulation No 1234/2008, which permits an identical set of variations to marketing authorisations owned by the same holder to be grouped together in a single notification in order to reduce the administrative burden entailed in processing them.
7

Article 2(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31; ‘Directive 89/665’), provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that the measures taken concerning the review procedures specified in Article 1 include provision for powers to: (a) take, at the earliest opportunity and by way of interlocutory procedures, interim measures with the aim of correcting the alleged infringement or preventing further damage to the interests concerned, including measures to suspend or to ensure the suspension of the procedure for the award of a public contract or the implementation of any decision taken by the contracting authority; (b) either set aside or ensure the setting aside of decisions taken unlawfully, including the removal of discriminatory technical, economic or financial specifications in the invitation to tender, the contract documents or in any other document relating to the contract award procedure; (c) award damages to persons harmed by an infringement. 2. The powers specified in paragraph 1 and Articles 2d and 2e may be conferred on separate bodies responsible for different aspects of the review procedure. … 9. Where bodies responsible for review procedures are not judicial in character, written reasons for their decisions shall always be given. Furthermore, in such a case, provision must be made to guarantee procedures whereby any allegedly illegal measure taken by the review body or any alleged defect in the exercise of the powers conferred on it can be the subject of judicial review or review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article [267 TFEU] and independent of both the contracting authority and the review body. The members of such an independent body shall be appointed and leave office under the same conditions as members of the judiciary as regards the authority responsible for their appointment, their period of office, and their removal. At least the President of this independent body shall have the same legal and professional qualifications as members of the judiciary. The independent body shall take its decisions following a procedure in which both sides are heard, and these decisions shall, by means determined by each Member State, be legally binding.’
24

In those circumstances, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) In a case where a person residing in one Member State (the home State) is entitled to child benefit for children who live in another Member State (abroad) with the other spouse from whom he is separated, is the second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 to be applied in such a way that the deeming provisions that, for the purpose of applying Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation No 883/2004, the situation of the whole family is to be taken into account as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned and residing there, in particular as regards a person’s entitlement to claim benefits, leads to the parent residing in the other Member State (abroad) being exclusively entitled to child benefit because the national law of the first Member State provides that where several persons are entitled to child benefit, the benefit is granted to the parent who has taken the child into his or her household? (2) If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: In the situation set out in paragraph 1, is the third sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that the parent residing in one Member State (the home State) has the right to child benefit under domestic law because the other parent residing in the other Member State (abroad) has not made an application for child benefit? (3) If, in the situation set out in paragraph 1, the answer to the second question is that the failure of the parent residing in another EU Member State to make an application leads to the transfer of the right to child benefit to the parent residing in the home State: After what period of time may it be presumed that a parent residing in another EU Member State is not “exercising” his or her right to child benefit within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, so that the parent residing in the home State has the right to child benefit?’
10

Article 32 of that directive, entitled ‘Subsequent application’, provides as follows: ‘… 2. Moreover, Member States may apply a specific procedure as referred to in paragraph 3, where a person makes a subsequent application for asylum: … (b) after a decision has been taken on the previous application. Member States may also decide to apply this procedure only after a final decision has been taken. 3. A subsequent application for asylum shall be subject first to a preliminary examination as to whether, after the withdrawal of the previous application or after the decision referred to in paragraph 2(b) of this Article on this application has been reached, new elements or findings relating to the examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee by virtue of [Council] Directive 2004/83/EC [of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)] have arisen or have been presented by the applicant. 4. If, following the preliminary examination referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, new elements or findings arise or are presented by the applicant which significantly add to the likelihood of the applicant qualifying as a refugee by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC, the application shall be further examined in conformity with Chapter II. 5. Member States may, in accordance with national legislation, further examine a subsequent application where there are other reasons why a procedure has to be re-opened. 6. Member States may decide to further examine the application only if the applicant concerned was, through no fault of his/her own, incapable of asserting the situations set forth in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this Article in the previous procedure, in particular by exercising his/her right to an effective remedy pursuant to Article 39. …’
10

Section D of Annex I to Directive 91/271, concerning reference methods for monitoring and evaluation of results, is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that a monitoring method is applied which corresponds at least with the level of requirements described below. Alternative methods to those mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 may be used provided that it can be demonstrated that equivalent results are obtained. Member States shall provide the Commission with all relevant information concerning the applied method. If the Commission considers that the conditions set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are not met, it will submit an appropriate proposal to the Council. 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 9999 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. ‐ 10000 to 49999 p. e.: 12 samples; … 4. The treated waste water shall be assumed to conform to the relevant parameters if, for each relevant parameter considered individually, samples of the water show that it complies with the relevant parametric value in the following way: (a) for the parameters specified in Table 1 and Article 2(7), a maximum number of samples which are allowed to fail the requirements, expressed in concentrations and/or percentage reductions in Table 1 and Article 2(7), is specified in Table 3; (b) for the parameters of Table 1 expressed in concentrations, the failing samples taken under normal operating conditions must not deviate from the parametric values by more than 100%. For the parametric values in concentration relating to total suspended solids deviations of up to 150% may be accepted; … 5. Extreme values for the water quality in question shall not be taken into consideration when they are the result of unusual situations such as those due to heavy rain.’
4

Article 11 of Regulation No 1/2003, headed ‘Cooperation between the Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States’, provides: ‘1. The Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States shall apply the Community competition rules in close cooperation. 2. The Commission shall transmit to the competition authorities of the Member States copies of the most important documents it has collected with a view to applying Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and Article 29(1). At the request of the competition authority of a Member State, the Commission shall provide it with a copy of other existing documents necessary for the assessment of the case. 3. The competition authorities of the Member States shall, when acting under Article [101 TFEU] or Article [102 TFEU], inform the Commission in writing before or without delay after commencing the first formal investigative measure. This information may also be made available to the competition authorities of the other Member States. 4. No later than 30 days before the adoption of a decision requiring that an infringement be brought to an end, accepting commitments or withdrawing the benefit of a block exemption Regulation, the competition authorities of the Member States shall inform the Commission. To that effect, they shall provide the Commission with a summary of the case, the envisaged decision or, in the absence thereof, any other document indicating the proposed course of action. This information may also be made available to the competition authorities of the other Member States. At the request of the Commission, the acting competition authority shall make available to the Commission other documents it holds which are necessary for the assessment of the case. The information supplied to the Commission may be made available to the competition authorities of the other Member States. National competition authorities may also exchange between themselves information necessary for the assessment of a case that they are dealing with under Article [101 TFEU] or Article [102 TFEU]. 5. The competition authorities of the Member States may consult the Commission on any case involving the application of Community law. 6. The initiation by the Commission of proceedings for the adoption of a decision under Chapter III shall relieve the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to apply Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU]. If a competition authority of a Member State is already acting on a case, the Commission shall only initiate proceedings after consulting with that national competition authority.’