ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7

Article 10(9g) and (9h) of Decree-Law No provides: ‘9g As part of a reform of the legislation relating to public gambling, including that relating to the collection of bets on sporting events, including horse racing, and non-sporting events, the provisions of the present paragraph have the aim of promoting that reorganisation, through an initial alignment of the expiry dates of the licences for the collection of the bets in question, while observing the requirement that the national rules on the selection of persons who, on behalf of the State, collect bets on sporting events, including horse racing, and non-sporting events, are adjusted to the principles laid down by the judgment [in Costa and Cifone, EU:C:2012:80]. To that end, in view of the impending expiry of a group of licences for the collection of those bets, the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies shall immediately initiate, and in any event by 31 July 2012 at the latest, a call for tenders for the selection of persons who are to collect such bets with due regard, at the very least, to the following criteria: (a) the possibility of participation for persons already carrying out an activity related to the collection of bets in one of the States of the European Economic Area, as a result of having their legal and operational seat there, on the basis of a valid and effective authorisation issued under the provisions in force in the law of that State and who fulfil the requirements as to reputation, reliability and financial capacity specified by the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies …; (b) the award of a licence, expiring on 30 June 2016, for the collection, exclusively in a physical network, of bets on sporting events, including horse racing, and non-sporting events, from agencies, up to a maximum of 2000, whose sole activity is the marketing of public gambling products, without restriction as to the minimum distances between those agencies or with respect to other collection points, which are already active, for identical bets; (c) provision, as a price component, for a basic contract value of EUR 11 000 for each agency; (d) the conclusion of a licence contract whose content is consistent with any other principle laid down by the judgment [in Costa and Cifone, EU:C:2012:80] and with the compatible national provisions in force regarding public gambling; (e) the possibility of managing agencies in any municipality or province, without numerical limits on a territorial basis or more favourable conditions compared to licensees who are already authorised to collect identical bets or which may, in any event, be favourable to those licensees; (f) the lodging of deposits …; 9h The licensees who are to collect bets referred to in paragraph 9g, whose contracts expire on 30 June 2012, shall continue their collection activities until the date of the conclusion of the licence contracts awarded in accordance with the above paragraph. …’
27

In those circumstances, the Bundesarbeitsgericht decided to stay the proceedings and to refer, in each of the cases in the main proceedings, the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools to be interpreted as meaning that part-time teachers employed by a European school, who are not seconded by the Member States, are persons covered by the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools and are not — unlike the administrative and ancillary staff — excepted from the application of that provision? (2) If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the affirmative: Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools to be interpreted as meaning that that provision also covers the legality of any act, based on the Convention or on the rules made under it, which is performed in relation to part-time teachers by the headteacher of a school in the exercise of his powers and which adversely affects such part-time teachers? (3) If the Court of Justice answers the second question in the affirmative: Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools to be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a contract between the headteacher of a European school and a part-time teacher concerning the fixed-term nature of the part-time teacher’s employment relationship constitutes an act which is performed by the headteacher in relation to that part-time teacher and which adversely affects the latter? (4) If the Court of Justice answers the second or third question in the negative: Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools to be interpreted as meaning that the Complaints Board referred to therein has exclusive jurisdiction in the first and final instance, once all administrative channels have been exhausted, in any dispute relating to the fixed-term nature of a contract of employment which the headteacher of a school concludes with a part-time teacher if that contract is essentially based on the requirement of the Board of Governors in point 1.3 of the Conditions of Employment for Part-time Teachers, which provides for “annual contracts”?’
14

Annex II to that regulation contains provisions concerning the journey log, which Article 5(4) thereof requires transporters and organisers to keep in the case of long journeys for long journeys involving animals concerned between Member States and between Member States and third countries. That log comprises five sections relating to planning, place of departure, place of destination, declaration by transporter concerning the actual itinerary, resting, transfer and exit points and any animal injuries or deaths and a specimen anomaly report, where applicable. The annex provides inter alia: ‘... 3. The organiser shall: ... (b) ensure that a signed copy of Section 1 of the journey log, properly completed except as regards the veterinary–certificate numbers, is received within two working days before the time of departure by the competent authority of the place of departure in a manner defined by such authority; (c) comply with any instruction given by the competent authority under [Article 14(1)]; (d) ensure that the journey log is stamped as required in Article 14(1); (e) ensure that the journey log accompanies the animals during the journey until the point of destination or, in case of export to a third country, at least until the exit point. 4. Keepers at the place of departure and, when the place of destination is located within the territory of the Community, keepers at the place of destination, shall complete and sign the relevant sections of the journey log. They shall inform the competent authority of any reservations concerning compliance with the provisions of this Regulation using the specimen form in Section 5 as soon as possible. ... 7. If animals are exported to a third country, transporters shall give the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point. In the case of export of live bovine animals with refunds, Section 3 of the journey log shall not be required if the agricultural legislation requires a report. 8. The transporter referred to in Section 3 of the journey log shall keep: (a) a copy of the completed journey log; ... Documents referred to … shall be made available to the competent authority which granted the transporter’s authorisation and upon request to the competent authority of the place of departure, within one month after it has been completed and shall be kept by the transporter for a period of at least three years from the date of the check. Documents referred to in point (a) shall be returned to the competent authority of the place of departure within [one] month after the completion of the journey, unless the [navigation] systems referred to in Article 6(9) were used. ...’
7

Recitals 6, 8, 10 and 14 in the preamble to Regulation No 2362/98 state as follows: ‘(6) Whereas a share of the tariff quotas and traditional ACP bananas must be reserved for “newcomers”; whereas that overall allocation should be sufficient to allow operators to participate in that import trade and encourage healthy competition; … (8) Whereas experience from several years of applying the Community banana import arrangements indicates the need to tighten the eligibility criteria for new operators so as to avoid the registration of purely fictitious agents and the grant of allocations in response to artificial or speculative applications; whereas, in particular, it is justifiable to demand a minimum of experience in importing comparable products — fresh products falling within Chapters 7, 8 and, under certain conditions, 9 of the Combined Nomenclature; whereas, also, to avoid applications for annual allocations which bear little relation to operators’ actual capacities and which will not lead to applications for import licences for the corresponding quantities, submission of an application for an annual allocation should be subject to the requirement that a security in lieu of the import licence security be lodged …; … (10) Whereas the provisions applying to the registration of operators and the determination of their reference quantities or annual allocations, as the case may be, should be adopted; whereas the verifications and checks to be carried out by the competent national authorities should be specified; whereas, lastly, the action to be taken in the event that certain obligations are not fulfilled, in particular as regards registration and declarations made for the purpose of obtaining reference quantities or allocations under the import arrangements, should also be specified; … (14) Whereas the conditions for and the effects of transferring licences should be specified in the light of the definition of operator categories established by this Regulation; whereas a transfer restricted to a single transferee per licence or certificate or extract therefrom will allow trade relations to develop between the various registered operators; whereas, however, artificial trade, speculation or disturbance of normal trade should not be encouraged by permitting transfers from “newcomers” in favour of “traditional operators”.’
20

That court is unsure as to whether it is possible to apply the reasoning followed by the Court in the judgment in Velker International Oil Company (C‑185/89, EU:C:1990:262) to a situation in which the goods at issue are transferred to the tanks of the vessels which will use them by a taxable person and in which adequate checks were in place to ensure that the goods were actually used for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used on the high seas. In the judgment in A (C‑33/11, EU:C:2012:482), the Court acknowledged that the exemption provided for in what is now Article 148(f) of Directive 2006/112, for the supply of aircraft, might apply to supplies prior to the final stage of the commercial chain on the ground that taking account, in particular, of the type of goods concerned and, inter alia, of the registration and authorisation mechanisms to which their operation is subject, that extension of the exemption does not seem to be liable to give rise to constraints for the Member States and the economic agents concerned which could not be reconciled with the correct and straightforward application of the exemptions laid down by what is now Article 131 of Directive 2006/112.
51

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question referred is that Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that: — where a jurisdiction clause is included in a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds, the ‘in writing’ requirement laid down in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 is met only if the contract signed by the parties upon the issue of the bonds on the primary market expressly mentions the acceptance of that clause or contains an express reference to that prospectus; — a jurisdiction clause contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary if it is established, which it is for the referring to verify, that (i) that clause is valid in the relationship between the issuer and the financial intermediary, (ii) the third party, by acquiring those bonds on the secondary market, succeeded to the financial intermediary’s rights and obligations attached to those bonds under the applicable national law, and (iii) the third party had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus containing that clause; and — the insertion of a jurisdiction clause into a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds may be regarded as a form which accords with a usage in international trade or commerce, for the purpose of Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, allowing the consent of the person against whom it is relied upon to be presumed, provided inter alia that it is established, which it is for the referring court to verify, (i) that such conduct is generally and regularly followed by the operators in the particular trade or commerce concerned when contracts of that type are concluded and (ii) either that the parties had previously had commercial or trade relations between themselves or with other parties operating in the sector in question, or that the conduct in question is sufficiently well known to be considered an established practice.
10

The amounts of the lump-sum remuneration and the proportional remuneration referred to in Articles 59 and 60 of the LCRR are fixed in Articles 2, 4, 8 and 9 of the Royal Decree of 30 October 1997 concerning the remuneration of authors and publishers for copies made for private or didactic purposes of works fixed on a graphic or similar medium (‘the Royal Decree’). Those articles state: ‘Article 2 (1) The amount of the lump-sum remuneration applicable to copiers shall be set at: 1. EUR [5.01] per copier producing under 6 copies per minute; 3. 2. EUR [18.39] per copier producing between 6 and 9 copies per minute; 10 EUR [60.19] per copier producing between 10 and 19 copies per minute; 4. EUR [195.60] per copier producing between 20 and 39 copies per minute; 5. EUR [324.33] per copier producing between 40 and 59 copies per minute; 6. EUR [810.33] per copier producing between 60 and 89 copies per minute; 7. EUR [1838.98] per copier producing over 89 copies per minute. In setting the amount of the lump-sum remuneration, the speed of black-and-white copying shall be taken into consideration, even for devices which produce colour copies. (2) The amount of the lump-sum remuneration applicable to duplicating machines and to office-type offset printing machinery shall be set at: 1. EUR [324.33] per duplicating machine; 2. EUR [810.33] per office type offset printing machine. ... Article 4 In the case of devices combining several of the functions of the devices referred to in Articles 2 and 3, the amount of the lump-sum remuneration shall be the highest of the amounts provided for in Articles 2 and 3 which are capable of being applied to the combined device. ... Article 8 Should the person liable for payment fail to cooperate as set out in Articles 10 to 12, the amount of the proportional remuneration shall be set at: 1. EUR [0.0334] per copy of a protected work; 2. EUR [0.0251] per copy of a protected work produced by means of devices used by an educational or public lending establishment. In the case of colour copies of protected works in colour, the amounts referred to in the previous paragraph shall be multiplied by two. Article 9 In so far as the person liable for payment has cooperated in the recovery of the proportional remuneration by the rights management company, the amount of that remuneration shall be set at: 1. EUR [0.0201] per copy of a protected work; 2. EUR [0.0151] per copy of a protected work produced by means of devices used by an educational or public lending establishment. In the case of colour copies of protected works in colour, the amounts referred to in the previous paragraph shall be multiplied by two.’
51

Roca maintains, in essence, first, that paragraphs 116 to 145 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by an error of law. It submits that the General Court did not act upon its finding that the participation in the infringement that was imputed to Roca was of lesser gravity than that of other members of the cartel and should, in particular, have (i) adjusted the multipliers for the ‘gravity of the infringement’ and the ‘additional amount’ and (ii) reduced the basic amount of the fine. Roca argues in this respect that the judgment under appeal drew no distinction — other than with regard to the geographic extent of the involvement of the participants in the infringement — between the gravity of its conduct and the gravity of the conduct of the undertakings making up the ‘hard core’ of participating undertakings, in order to reflect the nature of their respective actions. In accordance with the principle of non-discrimination, the General Court should — by applying to Roca lower multipliers for the ‘gravity of the infringement’ and for the ‘additional amount’ than those applied to those core undertakings — have reduced the basic amount of the fine imposed, particularly since the General Court itself, in paragraphs 139, 247 and 248 of the judgment under appeal, had recognised that the lesser gravity of Roca’s conduct should have been reflected through the application of such multipliers. However, the General Court did not take account of the lesser gravity of Roca’s participation in the infringement as compared with that of other participants, either by adjusting the multipliers or by taking account of mitigating circumstances.
Article 60 of Regulation No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty must be interpreted as meaning that, where animals specially prepared for laboratory use, which an importer brings into the European Union, are intended for a public establishment or an authorised private establishment which is principally engaged in education or scientific research, that importer, although it is not itself such an establishment, may be entitled to the relief from import duties provided for by that article for goods of this type.

Entitlement to the relief from customs duty provided for in Article 60 of Regulation No 918/83 depends more on the use by the recipient of the imported goods than on the identity of the importer.

Moreover, it is clear from the wording of Articles 128 and 129 of Regulation No 918/83 that the EU legislature foresaw the case in which the importer could be a person other than the recipient of the imported goods, in situations such as those provided for in Article 60 of Regulation No 918/83.

Lastly, the achievement of the objective pursued by Article 60 of Regulation No 918/83, which is to facilitate research activities by allowing certain establishments located in the European Union to import, at minimal cost, animals specially prepared for laboratory use, would not be hindered by allowing those establishments to choose the most appropriate and most advantageous importation solution for them.

As a result, given the context in which Article 60 of Regulation No 918/83 occurs and the objective pursued by that provision, it is not required that the importer of the animals covered by that article, in order to be entitled to the relief from import duties provided for in respect of goods of this type, meet the criteria classifying that importer as the recipient of those animals for the purposes of that provision.

(see paras 30, 31, 33, 34, operative part 1)
Directive 2002/22 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as meaning that the special tariffs and the financing mechanism provided for in Articles 9 and 13(1)(b) of that directive respectively apply to internet subscription services requiring a connection to the internet at a fixed location, but not to mobile communication services, including internet subscription services provided by means of those mobile communication services.

Both the title and wording of Article 4 of that directive expressly impose an obligation on the Member States to ensure the connection at a fixed location to a public communications network. That obligation is also apparent from recital 8 of that directive which states that a fundamental requirement of universal service is to provide end-users on request with a connection to the public telephone network at a fixed location, at an affordable price.

However, the term ‘at a fixed location’ means the opposite of the term ‘mobile’.

Therefore, mobile communication services are, by definition, excluded from the minimum set of universal services defined in Chapter II of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, because their provision does not presuppose access and a connection at a fixed location to a public communications network. Similarly, internet subscription services provided by means of mobile communication services do not come within that minimum set. On the other hand, internet subscription services are included in that set if in order for them to be provided there must be a connection to the internet at a fixed location.

If mobile communication services, including internet subscription services provided by means of those mobile communication services, are made publicly available within the national territory as ‘additional mandatory services’ for the purposes of Article 32 of that directive, they cannot be financed, under national law, by a mechanism involving specific undertakings.

As recital 25 of that directive states, Member States are not permitted to impose on market players financial contributions which relate to measures which are not part of the universal service obligations. Therefore, while individual Member States remain free to finance special measures in conformity with EU law, they may not do so by means of contributions from market players.

(see paras 34-37, 42, 43, operative part)
The second paragraph of Article 12 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which takes into consideration salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Union to its officials and other servants in order to determine the upper limit on liability with respect to a residence tax levied for the benefit of local communities, with a view to the possible granting of relief from it.

The national legislation contains no provision which prevents officials and other servants of the Union from qualifying for partial relief from residence tax on the same conditions as are applicable to any other taxpayer who may qualify for that advantage, namely that the reference taxable income should not exceed the statutorily defined threshold.

Further, the residence tax depends essentially on the rental value of the residential premises and does not relate to either the taxpayer’s ability to pay or the full extent of the taxpayer’s assets.

In that regard, the system for the granting of partial relief from residence tax represents a social policy measure which enables low-income tax households to cope with local taxes. If it were accepted that salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Union could be excluded on the basis of the provisions of Article 12 of the Protocol, that would have the effect of altering the essential nature of the social policy measure introduced.

(see paras 26, 28, 29, 31, operative part)