ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
5

Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 211/2011 states: ‘1. Prior to initiating the collection of statements of support from signatories for a proposed citizens’ initiative, the organisers shall be required to register it with the Commission, providing the information set out in Annex II, in particular on the subject matter and objectives of the proposed citizens’ initiative. That information shall be provided in one of the official languages of the Union, in an online register made available for that purpose by the Commission (“the register”). The organisers shall provide, for the register and where appropriate on their website, regularly updated information on the sources of support and funding for the proposed citizens’ initiative. After the registration is confirmed in accordance with paragraph 2, the organisers may provide the proposed citizens’ initiative in other official languages of the Union for inclusion in the register. The translation of the proposed citizens’ initiative into other official languages of the Union shall be the responsibility of the organisers. The Commission shall establish a point of contact which provides information and assistance. 2. Within two months from the receipt of the information set out in Annex II, the Commission shall register a proposed citizens’ initiative under a unique registration number and send a confirmation to the organisers, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the citizens’ committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated in accordance with Article 3(2); (b) the proposed citizens’ initiative does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties; (c) the proposed citizens’ initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious; and (d) the proposed citizens’ initiative is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU.’
16

According to Article 611fh of the CCP: ‘1. The court will examine the case concerning the execution of the decision on financial penalties at a sitting in which the public prosecutor, the offender, if present in the territory of the Republic of Poland, and the offender’s defence lawyer, if he appears for the sitting, shall have the right to participate. If an offender who is not present in the territory of the Republic of Poland does not have a defence lawyer, the president of the court having jurisdiction to examine the case may appoint a defence lawyer ex officio. 2. The order issued by the court ruling on the execution of the decision on financial penalties shall be subject to appeal. 3. A final decision on financial penalties, together with the appended certificate referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 611ff, shall constitute an enforceable instrument and shall be enforceable in Poland following the making of an order for its execution. 4. If the information transmitted by the issuing State is not sufficient for an order to be made for the execution of a decision imposing financial penalties, the court shall request the competent court or other authority of the issuing State to provide it with the necessary additional information within a specified period. 5. In the event of failure to act within the period referred to in paragraph 4, the order for the execution of the decision shall be made on the basis of the information previously provided.’
8

Paragraph 16 of the TV-L sets the steps within a grade in the remuneration table as follows: ‘1. Grades 9 to 15 each have five steps … 2. Employed workers shall be recruited at step 1 where they have no relevant professional experience. Where employed workers have acquired relevant professional experience of at least one year from a previous fixed-term or permanent employment relationship with the same employer, step allocation shall take into account the periods of relevant professional experience from that previous employment relationship. Where the relevant professional experience of at least one year has been acquired from an employment relationship with another employer, the employed worker shall be allocated to step 2 or, where the employed worker was recruited after 31 January 2010 and has relevant professional experience of at least three years, to step 3. Irrespective of this, in the case of new recruitments to cover staffing needs, the employer may take into account, in whole or in part, periods of previous professional activity when allocating an employee to a step, where that activity is beneficial to the intended activity. Explanations relating to Paragraph 16(2): 1. Relevant professional experience is professional experience in the activity assigned or an activity corresponding to the task allocated. … 3. A previous employment relationship within the meaning of the second sentence exists if there is a period of no more than six months between the end of the previous employment relationship and the beginning of the new one; … … 3. Employed workers advance to the next step — from step 3, depending on their performance, according to Paragraph 17(2) — after completing, with their employer, the following periods of continuous activity within the same step (advancement to a higher step): – Step 2, after one year in step 1, – Step 3, after two years in step 2, – Step 4, after three years in step 3, – Step 5, after four years in step 4 …’
7

Recitals 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 33 and 39 of Regulation No 1013/2006 read as follows: ‘(1) The main and predominant objective and component of this Regulation is the protection of the environment … … (3) [Decision 93/98] concerned the conclusion, on behalf of the Community, of the Basel Convention … to which the Community has been a party since 1994. … … (5) In view of the fact that the Community has approved Decision C(2001)107/Final of the [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)] Council concerning the revision of Decision C(92)39/Final on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations (OECD Decision), in order to harmonise waste lists with the Basel Convention and revise certain other requirements, it is necessary to incorporate the content of that Decision in Community legislation. … (7) It is important to organise and regulate the supervision and control of shipments of waste in a way which takes account of the need to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and human health and which promotes a more uniform application of the Regulation throughout the Community. (8) It is also important to bear in mind the requirement laid down in Article 4(2)(d) of the Basel Convention that shipments of hazardous waste are to be reduced to a minimum, consistent with environmentally sound and efficient management of such waste. … (14) In the case of shipments of … waste not listed in Annex III, IIIA or IIIB destined for recovery operations, it is appropriate to ensure optimum supervision and control by requiring prior written consent to such shipments. … (15) In the case of shipments of waste listed in Annex III, IIIA or IIIB destined for recovery operations, it is appropriate to ensure a minimum level of supervision and control by requiring such shipments to be accompanied by certain information. … (33) The necessary steps should be taken to ensure that, in accordance with Directive [2006/12] and other Community legislation on waste, waste shipped within the Community and waste imported into the Community is managed, throughout the period of shipment and including recovery or disposal in the country of destination, without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. … … (39) In considering the mixtures of wastes to be added in Annex IIIA, the following information should be considered, inter alia: the properties of the waste, such as its possible hazardous characteristics, its potential for contamination and its physical state; the management aspects, such as the technological capacity to recover the waste, and the environmental benefits arising from the recovery operation, including whether the environmentally sound management of the waste may be impaired. …’
14

Article 23 of the VAT Code, entitled ‘Deduction methods relating to mixed-use goods’ provides: ‘1 — Where a taxable person, in the course of its business, carries out transactions in respect of which value added tax is deductible and transactions in respect of which it is not deductible, under Article 20, the deduction of the tax paid on the purchase of the goods and services used for the purpose of carrying out both types of transactions shall be determined as follows: … (b) Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing subparagraph, in the case of goods or services used to carry out transactions connected with the pursuit of an economic activity provided for in Article 2(1)(a), some of which do not give rise to the right to deduct, the tax shall be deductible in direct proportion to the annual value of the transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible. … 2 — Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1(b), the taxable person may make the deduction according to the actual use of all or part of the goods and services used, on the basis of objective criteria making it possible to determine the extent to which those goods and services are used in transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and in transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible, without prejudice to any special conditions which may be imposed on it by the Directorate-General for Taxation, and to the power of that Directorate-General to withdraw the right to such treatment if it finds that this causes or may cause significant distortion of taxation. … 4 — The deductible percentage referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be expressed as a fraction made up, in the numerator, of the annual amount, exclusive of VAT, of transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible in accordance with Article 20(1) and, in the denominator, of the annual amount, exclusive of VAT, of all transactions carried out by the taxable person and deriving from the pursuit of an economic activity as provided for in Article 2(1)(a), as well as non-taxable subsidies other than equipment subsidies. … 6 — The deductible percentage referred to in paragraph 1(b), provisionally calculated on the basis of the value of the transactions carried out in the previous year, like the deduction made under paragraph 2, provisionally calculated on the basis of objective criteria initially used to apply the method of actual use, shall be adjusted to reflect the final amounts for the year to which they relate, resulting in the corresponding adjustment of the deductions made, which shall appear in the declaration for the final period of the relevant year.’
11

Article 17(1) to (4) of that regulation states: ‘1. Member States shall take all requisite measures to ensure that the amount corresponding to the entitlements established under Article 2 are made available to the Commission as specified in this Regulation. 2. Member States shall be released from the obligation to place at the disposal of the Commission the amounts corresponding to established entitlements which prove irrecoverable either: (a) for reasons of force majeure; or (b) for other reasons which cannot be attributed to them. Amounts of established entitlements shall be declared irrecoverable by a decision of the competent administrative authority finding that they cannot be recovered. Amounts of established entitlements shall be deemed irrecoverable, at the latest, after a period of five years from the date on which the amount has been established in accordance with Article 2 or, in the event of an administrative or judicial appeal, the final decision has been given, notified or published. If part payment or payments have been received, the period of five years at maximum shall start from the date of the last payment made, where this does not clear the debt. Amounts declared or deemed irrecoverable shall be definitively removed from the separate account referred to in Article 6(3)(b). They shall be shown in an annex to the quarterly statement referred to in Article 6(4)(b) and where applicable, in the quarterly statement referred to in Article 6(5). 3. Within three months of the administrative decision mentioned in paragraph 2 or in accordance with the time limits referred to in that paragraph, Member States shall provide the Commission with information on those cases where paragraph 2 has been applied provided the established entitlements involved exceed EUR 50000. … 4. The Commission has six months from the receipt of the report provided for in paragraph 3 to forward its comments to the Member State concerned. …’
11

Article 15(4) of the Wet houdende vervanging van de bestaande omzetbelasting door een omzetbelasting volgens het stelsel van heffing over de toegevoegde waarde (Law providing for replacement of the existing turnover tax by a turnover tax according to the system of collection of value added tax), of 28 June 1968 (Stb. 1968, No 329), in the version in force at the material time in the main proceedings (‘the Law on VAT’), provides: ‘Deduction of the tax shall be made in accordance with the intended use of the goods and services at the time when the tax is invoiced to the trader or at the time when the tax becomes chargeable. If it appears, at the time at which the trader starts to use the goods or services, that he or she is deducting the same tax to an extent which is higher or lower than that to which the use of the goods or services in question entitles him or her, the excess deducted shall be chargeable from that time. The tax which becomes chargeable shall be paid in accordance with Article 14. The amount of tax which could have been deducted and was not deducted shall be refunded to him or her on request.’
13

The Commission submits that, in the present case, it is common ground that the Republic of Slovenia did not transpose the MiFID II Directive on the expiry of the period laid down in Article 14 thereof, that is 3 July 2017, or the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, 26 March 2018. The Commission states that while the Republic of Slovenia claims that, on that date, the delegated directive was partially transposed into Slovenian law, the Commission was not informed of that alleged partial transposition until the beginning of December 2018. According to settled case-law, it is necessary to examine the question of a failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations by reference to the situation in force at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and no subsequent change can be taken into account by the Court. In any event, the measures communicated by the Republic of Slovenia on 3 December 2018, which were in force on 26 March 2018, did not transpose Articles 7 to 10 and 12 to 14 of the MiFID II Directive. Furthermore, Articles 1 to 6 and Article 11 of the Delegated Directive were only partially transposed by those measures.
31

WABE contends that the referring court should dismiss that action. In support of that contention, it submits, inter alia, that the internal rule prohibiting the visible wearing of political, philosophical or religious signs complies with the first sentence of Paragraph 106 of the GewO, read in conjunction with Paragraph 7(1) to (3) of the AGG, and that those national provisions should be interpreted in accordance with EU law. According to WABE, it is apparent from the judgment of 14 March 2017, G4S Secure Solutions (C‑157/15, EU:C:2017:203), that a private employer is authorised to implement a policy of neutrality within the undertaking provided that it is pursued consistently and systematically and that it is restricted to employees who are in contact with customers. There is no indirect discrimination if the rule concerned is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the employer’s desire to pursue a policy of neutrality in its relations with customers, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. That is the case here. Moreover, IX cannot be transferred to a post which does not involve contact with the children and their parents since such a post does not correspond to her abilities and qualifications. WABE argues that, by its judgment of 14 March 2017, G4S Secure Solutions (C‑157/15, EU:C:2017:203), the Court definitively ruled on the question of the balancing of fundamental rights in the light of the Charter in the case of a requirement of neutrality imposed by the employer. Since Paragraph 3(2) of the AGG is intended to transpose EU law, the German courts cannot give a different weighting to religious freedom, such as that adopted by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), without contravening the primacy of EU law and the principle of interpretation in accordance with EU law. Moreover, according to WABE, even if it were necessary to establish the existence of a specific risk or specific economic harm in order to restrict the freedom of religion, that requirement would also be met in the present case, since it is apparent from the posts which the applicant in the main proceedings displayed on her personal page of a social network that she wished, by her conduct, to influence third parties in a targeted and deliberate manner.
1.

By not having taken, by the date on which the expiration of the time-limit set in the letter of formal notice issued by the European Commission, namely on 5 December 2017, the necessary measures involved in implementing the judgment of 23 April 2015, Commission v Greece (C 149/14, not published, EU:C:2015:264), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the award procedure for a public works contract, not to accept a tender – Obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer – None – Obligation to disclose the evaluation committee’s report – Absence

(Art. 296 second para. (e); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113; Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Arts 161(2) and (3))

(see paras 37-40, 42)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 – Commission v HM

(Case C‑70/19 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 – Refusal to allow participation in the assessment tests – Request for review – Email of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – EPSO’s failure to send the request for review to the selection board of the competition – Ground for refusal – Out of time – Classification of EPSO’s email – Decision to reject the request for review – Powers – No legal basis – Setting aside)

1. Officials – Competitions – European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – Powers – Review of decisions of a competition selection board – Not included – Rejection by EPSO of a request for review of a decision of a selection board on the grounds that the request is out of time – Unlawfulness (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 76-80, 100, 102)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Plea directed against a superfluous ground – Invalid plea in law – Rejection (see para. 105)

3. Actions brought by officials – Interest in bringing proceedings – Plea based on infringement of essential procedural requirements – Limited power of the administration – Invalid plea in law (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 119)

4. Actions brought by officials – Time‑limits – Complaint lodged out of time – Burden of proof (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(3)) (see para. 123)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 November 2018, HM v Commission (T‑587/16, EU:T:2018:818);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2021 – FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission

(Case C‑850/19 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – State aid – Renewable energy support scheme – Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market – Action for annulment)

1. Appeal – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the facts or evidence have been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 22, 23, 53, 62, 68)

2. Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Plea raised for the first time at the reply stage – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84) (see para. 30)

3. EU law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities – None (see paras 34-37)

4. Appeal – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the General Court’s findings with regard to national law – Possible only where the facts or evidence have been distorted (see para. 47)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s cross-appeal;

3. Orders FVE Holýšov I s. r. o., FVE Stříbro s. r. o., FVE Úsilné s. r. o., FVE Mozolov s. r. o., FVE Osečná s. r. o., Solarpark Rybníček s. r. o., FVE Kněžmost s. r. o., Hutira FVE – Omice a.s., Exit 90 SPV s. r. o., Onyx Energy s. r. o., Onyx Energy projekt II s. r. o., Photon SPV 1 s. r. o., Photon SPV 3 s. r. o., Photon SPV 4 s. r. o., Photon SPV 6 s. r. o., Photon SPV 8 s. r. o., Photon SPV 10 s. r. o., Photon SPV 11 s. r. o., Antaris GmbH, Michael Göde, NGL Business Europe Ltd, NIG NV, GIHG Ltd, Radiance Energy Holding Sàrl, ICW Europe Investments Ltd, Photovoltaik Knopf Betriebs-GmbH, Voltaic Network GmbH and WA Investments-Europa Nova Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

4. Orders FVE Holýšov I s. r. o., FVE Stříbro s. r. o., FVE Úsilné s. r. o., FVE Mozolov s. r. o., FVE Osečná s. r. o., Solarpark Rybníček s. r. o., FVE Kněžmost s. r. o., Hutira FVE – Omice a.s., Exit 90 SPV s. r. o., Onyx Energy s. r. o., Onyx Energy projekt II s. r. o., Photon SPV 1 s. r. o., Photon SPV 3 s. r. o., Photon SPV 4 s. r. o., Photon SPV 6 s. r. o., Photon SPV 8 s. r. o., Photon SPV 10 s. r. o., Photon SPV 11 s. r. o., Antaris GmbH, Michael Göde, NGL Business Europe Ltd, NIG NV, GIHG Ltd, Radiance Energy Holding Sàrl, ICW Europe Investments Ltd, Photovoltaik Knopf Betriebs-GmbH, Voltaic Network GmbH and WA Investments-Europa Nova Ltd and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating to the cross-appeal;

5. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
1.

Declares that, by applying to cigarettes an overall excise duty of less than 60% of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption and levying an excise duty of less than EUR 115 per 1000 cigarettes, after the expiry of the transitional period granted until 31 December 2017, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco;