ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
11

As regards the assessment of the compatibility of the aid with the internal market, recitals 65, 67, 68 and 70 to 72 of that decision are worded as follows: ‘(65) The Commission has already acknowledged that the current global financial crisis can create a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and that measures supporting banks may be considered apt to remedy this disturbance. This assessment has been confirmed in the [Commission Communication on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (OJ 2008 C 270, p. 8; “the Banking Communication”)]. … ... (67) Whilst not submitting the restructuring plan, notwithstanding repeated requests and an information injunction, … Portugal extended the guarantee twice without prior notification to and approval of the Commission. (68) ... The [Decision of 13 March 2009] linked the approval of the … guarantee to implementation of the commitment by the Portuguese authorities to present the restructuring plan within 6 months. This commitment was not complied with by the Portuguese authorities. ... (70) [R]egarding the obligation to present the restructuring plan, … the fact remains that [that] plan was not presented within the required timeframe set out in the [Decision of 13 March 2009] and therefore the basis on which approval was given was not upheld. (71) It follows that the pricing of the guarantee was below the level normally required under the Banking Communication for it to be considered as compatible aid, and that the Commission only authorised that level of pricing in the [Decision of 13 March 2009] on the basis of a commitment by Portugal to submit a restructuring or liquidation plan which would adequately minimise the distortion of competition. No such plan having been presented by 5 June 2009, the Commission therefore concludes that neither the guarantee … nor its continuation after 5 June 2009 is compatible with the internal market. (72) Although Portugal presented no restructuring plan for BPP, the Portuguese authorities have provided information proving that the liquidation procedure which began on 15 April 2010 with the revocation of BPP’s banking licence will lead to its liquidation. Moreover, no compensation will be awarded to the shareholders of BPP other than any amounts stemming from the liquidation procedure itself. Based on this information, the Commission considers that there will be no risk of distortion of competition in the future regarding BPP. However, this conclusion does not remedy the incompatibility of the measure granted by Portugal for the period between 5 December 2008 and 15 April 2010.’
10

Under Article 8 of that regulation, entitled ‘Refusal to accept a document’: ‘1. The receiving agency shall inform the addressee, using the standard form set out in Annex II, that he may refuse to accept the document to be served at the time of service or by returning the document to the receiving agency within one week if it is not written in, or accompanied by a translation into, either of the following languages: (a) a language which the addressee understands; or (b) the official language of the Member State addressed or, if there are several official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected. 2. Where the receiving agency is informed that the addressee refuses to accept the document in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall immediately inform the transmitting agency by means of the certificate provided for in Article 10 and return the request and the documents of which a translation is requested. 3. If the addressee has refused to accept the document pursuant to paragraph 1, the service of the document can be remedied through the service on the addressee in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation of the document accompanied by a translation into a language provided for in paragraph 1. In that case, the date of service of the document shall be the date on which the document accompanied by the translation is served in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed. However, where according to the law of a Member State, a document has to be served within a particular period, the date to be taken into account with respect to the applicant shall be the date of the service of the initial document … …’
1.

Declares that, by failing to publish the final river basin management plans by 22 December 2009 at the latest and by failing to send a copy of those plans to the Commission by 22 March 2010 at the latest, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1), (2) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy;
Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from introducing a tax on motor vehicles which is levied on imported second-hand vehicles at the time of their first registration in that Member State and on vehicles already registered in that Member State at the time of the first transfer, within that Member State, of the ownership of those vehicles.

Such a tax regime is neutral in terms of competition as between second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar domestic vehicles already registered in the Member State concerned without tax having been paid to that effect.

However, Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding that Member State from exempting from that tax vehicles already registered and in respect of which a tax previously in force but found to be incompatible with EU law has been paid.

Such an exemption cannot replace the reimbursement, with interest, of that tax.

Furthermore, it has the effect of exempting from the payment of the tax in issue the first transfer of the right of ownership of second-hand domestic motor vehicles registered in the Member State concerned during the period of application of the tax previously in force but found to be incompatible with EU law, whereas that tax had invariably been levied at the time of registration in that Member State of similar vehicles imported from other Member States. That exemption thus favours sales of domestic second-hand vehicles and discourages the importation of similar vehicles.

In addition, the amount of the tax levied at the time of registration of a motor vehicle is incorporated into the value of that vehicle. In the case where a vehicle is registered following payment of a tax in a Member State and that vehicle is subsequently sold as a second-hand vehicle in that Member State, its market value includes the residual registration tax. If the amount of registration tax levied on an imported second-hand vehicle of the same type, characteristics and wear exceeds that residual tax, there will be a breach of Article 110 TFEU. That difference in the tax burden is liable to favour the sale of domestic second-hand vehicles, thereby discouraging the importation of similar vehicles.

As the amount of the tax previously in force but found to be incompatible with EU law levied at the time of registration of domestic second-hand motor vehicles must be reimbursed with interest in such a way that the situation existing prior to the levying of that amount is restored, that amount must no longer be considered to be incorporated into the value of those vehicles. Consequently, the residual amount of that tax, incorporated into the value of second-hand domestic vehicles registered during the abovementioned period, is equal to zero and is therefore necessarily lower than the registration tax levied on imported second-hand vehicles of the same type, characteristics and wear. Such a situation is incompatible with Article 110 TFEU.

(see paras 43, 47-51, operative part)
The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, as regards the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the signs at issue, must be based on the overall impression given by the signs, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

The assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components.

It follows from the case-law that, in some circumstances, the assessment of the similarity may be made solely on the basis of the dominant element of a composite mark. However, that case-law concerns only exceptional situations, and it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible in the overall impression conveyed by it that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.

(see paras 31, 32, 38)
1.

Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Legal classification of the facts — Admissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 38, 56)
The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) anti-dumping system can, in certain cases, constitute an exception to the general principle that the EU Courts cannot review the legality of the acts of the EU institutions in the light of whether they are consistent with the rules of the WTO agreements. However, in order for such an exception to be allowed in a specific case, it must also be established to the requisite legal standard that the legislature has shown the intention to implement in EU law a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO agreements.

To that end, it is not sufficient for the preamble to the EU act in question to support only a general inference that that legal act has been adopted with due regard for international obligations entered into by the European Union. It is, on the other hand, necessary to be able to deduce from the specific provision of EU law contested that it seeks to implement into EU law a particular obligation stemming from the WTO agreements.

Since there are no specific rules on non-market economy WTO member countries in the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ( ‘the Anti-Dumping Agreement’), a correlation cannot be established between, on the one hand, the rules in Article 2(7) of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as most recently amended by Regulation No 2117/2005, directed at the imports from non-market economy WTO member countries and, on the other, the rules set out in Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. It follows that that provision of that regulation cannot be considered to be a measure intended to ensure the implementation in the EU legal order of a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO.

Furthermore, the expression in recital 5 of Regulation No 384/96, which states that the rules of the Anti-Dumping Agreement should be brought into EU legislation ‘as far as possible’, must be understood as meaning that even if the EU legislature intended to take into account the rules of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when adopting that regulation, it did not, however, show the intention of transposing all those rules in that regulation.

(see paras 44-46, 50, 52)
Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, as amended by Regulation No 889/2002, and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Union by Decision 2001/539, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a determination on the basis of Article 17 of that Convention of a claim for damages brought by a person who — whilst she (i) was a passenger in an aircraft that had the same place of take-off and landing in a Member State and (ii) was being carried free of charge for the purpose of viewing from the air a property in connection with a property transaction planned with the pilot of that aircraft — was physically injured when the aircraft crashed.

Article 18 of Regulation No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has suffered damage as the result of an aircraft crash is entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the person liable to provide compensation, where such an action is provided for by the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation, regardless of the provision made by the law that the parties have chosen as the law applicable to the insurance contract.

Article 18 of that regulation does not constitute a conflict-of-laws rule with regard to the substantive law applicable to the determination of the liability of the insurer or the person insured under an insurance contract. That article merely makes it possible to bring a direct action where one of the laws to which it refers provides for such a possibility. The right of the person who has suffered damage to bring a claim directly against the insurer of the person liable to provide compensation does not affect the contractual obligations of the parties to the insurance contract concerned. Similarly, the choice, made by those parties, of the law applicable to that contract does not affect the right of the person who has suffered damage to bring a direct action in accordance with the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation. Consequently, in order to determine whether the person injured may bring a claim directly against the insurer, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation, determined in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation No 864/2007, or the law applicable to the insurance contract entered into between the parties permits such a claim to be brought.

(see paras 40-43, 45, operative part 2)
Case C‑309/14

Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL)

and

Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA)

v

Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — National legislation — Issue and renewal of a residence permit — Condition — Obligatory financial contribution — Amount eight times higher than that for obtaining a national identity card — Infringement of the principles of Directive 2003/109/EC’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 2 September 2015

Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109 — Application for issue or renewal of a residence permit — Excessively high fees charged by the competent authorities — Unlawful

(Council Directive 2003/109)

Directive 2003/109 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents precludes national legislation which requires third-country nationals, when applying for the issue or renewal of a residence permit in the Member State concerned, to pay a fee which varies in amount between EUR 80 and EUR 200, inasmuch as such a fee is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by that directive and is liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that directive.

While it is open to Member States to make the issue of residence permits under that directive subject to the levying of charges, the level at which those charges are set must not have, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, either the object or the effect of creating an obstacle to the obtaining of the long-term resident status conferred by that directive, and also of other rights which stem from the granting of that status, since both the objective and the spirit of that directive would otherwise be undermined.

The financial impact of a fee which varies in amount between EUR 80 and EUR 200 may be significant for certain third-country nationals meeting the conditions laid down by Directive 2003/109 for the granting of residence permits covered by that directive, especially since, given the duration of such permits, those nationals are obliged to seek the renewal of their permits somewhat frequently and the amount of that fee may be in addition to other fees provided for under pre-existing national legislation, with the result that, in such circumstances, the obligation to pay the fee at issue could constitute an obstacle to the exercise by those third-country nationals of the rights conferred on them by that directive.

(see paras 25, 27, 31, operative part)
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions according to which interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities are subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union other than the Kingdom of Belgium or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement of 2 May 1992, although that interest is exempted from withholding tax where those securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;
2.

Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Hellenic Republic be required to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 3640000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C‑440/06, EU:C:2007:642), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment in Commission v Greece (C‑440/06, EU:C:2007:642) has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C‑440/06, EU:C:2007:642) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment;
The first paragraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property by way of sale, by an appointed agent, falls within the category of proceedings ‘which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.

First, an action for the termination of co-ownership in immovable property, designed to bring about the transfer of a right of ownership in immovable property, concerns rights in rem which have effect erga omnes and is intended to ensure that the holders of those rights can protect the powers attached to their interest.

Second, considerations of sound administration of justice, which underlie the first paragraph of Article 22(1) of the regulation, also support such exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, the transfer of the right of ownership in immovable property resulting from such an action will entail the taking into account of situations of fact and law relating to the linking factor as laid down in that provision, namely the place where the immovable property is situated. The same applies, in particular, to the fact that the right of ownership in immovable property and the rights of use encumbering that right are the subject of entries in the Land Register of the Member State where the property is situated in accordance with the law of that Member State, the fact that rules governing the sale, by auction where appropriate, of that property are those of the Member State in which the property is situated, and the fact that, in the case of disagreement, the obtaining of evidence will be facilitated by proximity to the locus rei sitae.

(see paras 29-31, 33, operative part)
With regard to the clearance of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) accounts, in view of the structure of the management and control systems established in Article 38(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, under which the Member States are to take responsibility in the first instance for the financial control of ERDF assistance, the Member States are in fact best placed to collect and verify the data relating to that assistance.

The Member State concerned, for its part, cannot rebut the findings that underpin such evidence of the Commission’s serious and reasonable doubt unless it substantiates its own assertions with evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. If it is not able to show that the Commission’s findings are inaccurate, the latter amount to evidence liable to give rise to serious doubts as to the existence of an adequate and effective series of supervisory measures and inspection procedures. Consequently, it is for the Member State concerned to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its checks have been carried out and its figures are accurate and, as the case may be, that the Commission’s assertions are incorrect.

(see paras 63-66)
1.

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Action capable of conferring a benefit on the party who brought it — Scope — Commission decision imposing a fine for breach of the competition rules — Action brought by the undertaking on which the fine was imposed challenging the calculation of an interest rate in the case of payment by instalments — Payment of interest at the increased rate already applied — Admissibility (Arts 101 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 85 and 86(5)) (see paras 36-43)