ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
13

Article 9 of Directive 93/83, entitled ‘Exercise of the cable retransmission right’, states: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that the right of copyright owners and holders of related rights to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for a cable retransmission may be exercised only through a collecting society. 2. Where a rightholder has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society, the collecting society which manages rights of the same category shall be deemed to be mandated to manage his rights. Where more than one collecting society manages rights of that category, the rightholder shall be free to choose which of those collecting societies is deemed to be mandated to manage his rights. A rightholder referred to in this paragraph shall have the same rights and obligations resulting from the agreement between the cable operator and the collecting society which is deemed to be mandated to manage his rights as the rightholders who have mandated that collecting society and he shall be able to claim those rights within a period, to be fixed by the Member State concerned, which shall not be shorter than three years from the date of the cable retransmission which includes his work or other protected subject matter. 3. A Member State may provide that, when a rightholder authorises the initial transmission within its territory of a work or other protected subject matter, he shall be deemed to have agreed not to exercise his cable retransmission rights on an individual basis but to exercise them in accordance with the provisions of this Directive.’
18

By judgment of 12 March 2019, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court, Germany) upheld the action brought by XC against that decision of the General Consulate and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to issue XC with a visa for the purpose of family reunification. It justified its decision by stating that, according to the judgment of 12 April 2018, A and S (C‑550/16, EU:C:2018:248), concerning the family reunification of parents with an unaccompanied minor refugee – which could be applied to the reverse situation arising in the present case concerning the family reunification of a child with a parent who has been granted refugee status – the decisive date for the purposes of assessing XC’s status as a minor is not the date of the application for a visa for the purpose of family reunification, but the date of the application for asylum submitted by her father. Consequently, point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Directive 2003/86 should be interpreted as meaning that a child of the sponsor must be regarded as a minor if he or she was a minor at the time the sponsor submitted the application for asylum. Furthermore, according to the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), also in the case of family reunification of children, the determination of the relevant date for the purposes of assessing whether the child concerned is a minor is not left to the discretion of the Member States, but must result from an autonomous interpretation of Directive 2003/86. That court stated that the effectiveness of the right to family reunification would be undermined and the principles of legal certainty and equal treatment infringed if, for the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of that directive, the date chosen for assessing whether the child concerned was a minor was that on which the child’s visa application was lodged. It noted that, in the present case, XC submitted her visa application within the period of three months from the day on which the person holding the original right of residence was granted refugee status, as required in accordance with the relevant case-law of the Court.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention and by failing to notify the text of such provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that framework decision.
6

Article 9 of that directive, entitled ‘Provisional and precautionary measures’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that the judicial authorities may, at the request of the applicant: (a) issue against the alleged infringer an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right, or to forbid, on a provisional basis and subject, where appropriate, to a recurring penalty payment where provided for by national law, the continuation of the alleged infringements of that right, or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of the rightholder; an interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right; … (b) order the seizure or delivery up of the goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right so as to prevent their entry into or movement within the channels of commerce. … 5. Member States shall ensure that the provisional measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 are revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, upon request of the defendant, if the applicant does not institute, within a reasonable period, proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the competent judicial authority, the period to be determined by the judicial authority ordering the measures where the law of a Member State so permits or, in the absence of such determination, within a period not exceeding 20 working days or 31 calendar days, whichever is the longer. 6. The competent judicial authorities may make the provisional measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 subject to the lodging by the applicant of adequate security or an equivalent assurance intended to ensure compensation for any prejudice suffered by the defendant as provided for in paragraph 7. 7. Where the provisional measures are revoked or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant appropriate compensation for any injury caused by those measures.’
30

By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, first, whether Article 1(a)(ii) of Framework Decision 2005/214 must be interpreted as meaning that a final decision requiring a financial penalty to be paid by a natural person, adopted by an authority of the issuing Member State other than a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of the issuing Member State, constitutes a ‘decision’, within the meaning of that provision, where the legislation of that Member State provides that an appeal against that decision is to be examined first by a public prosecutor placed under the hierarchical authority of the Minister for Justice and subsequently, if that public prosecutor adopts a decision dismissing that appeal, a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters may be seised by the person concerned. Secondly, the referring court asks whether that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the person concerned has had ‘an opportunity to have the case tried by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, within the meaning of that provision, if, in accordance with the legislation of the issuing Member State, where the fine imposed is EUR 225 or more, the examination of the appeal by a court is subject to the payment by that person of a deposit equal to that amount.
5

Article 8 of that regulation, entitled ‘Refusal to accept a document’, which came under Section 1 of Chapter II thereof, provided: ‘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 … 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 determined pursuant to Article 9(2). 4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall also apply to the means of transmission and service of judicial documents provided for in Section 2. 5. For the purposes of paragraph 1, … the authority or person, where service is effected in accordance with Article 14, shall inform the addressee that he may refuse to accept the document and that any document refused must be sent … to that authority or person respectively.’
4

Article 113a of that regulation, headed ‘Additional requirements for the marketing of the products of the fruit and vegetables sector’, provided: ‘1. The products of the fruit and vegetables sector which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer, may only be marketed if they are sound, fair and of marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated. 2. The marketing standards referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and in points (b) and (c) of Article 113(1) shall apply at all marketing stages including import and export unless otherwise provided for by the Commission. 3. The holder of products of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sector covered by marketing standards may not display such products or offer them for sale or deliver or market them in any manner within the [European Union] other than in conformity with those standards and shall be responsible for ensuring such conformity. 4. Further to the second subparagraph of Article 113(3) and without prejudice to any specific provisions which may be adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article 194, in particular on the consistent application in the Member States of the conformity checks, Member States shall, in respect of the fruit and vegetables and the processed fruit and vegetables sectors, check selectively, based on a risk analysis, whether the products concerned conform to the respective marketing standards. These checks shall be focused on the stage prior to dispatch from the production areas when the products are being packed or loaded. For products from third countries, checks shall be done prior to release for free circulation.’
32

Furthermore, in so far as the packages offered to customers give access both to the premises of the fitness centre in which sport and physical education may be carried out and to group classes, without any distinction as to the type of facilities actually used and the possible participation in group classes, that fact constitutes a strong indication that there is a single supply. In that context, taking account of the intention of each visitor as to the use of the facilities which are made available or participation in the group classes offered by the operator would be contrary to the objectives pursued by the VAT system of ensuring legal certainty and the correct and straightforward application of the reduced rate of VAT as regards the use of sporting facilities. In that regard, in order to facilitate the application of VAT, account must be taken, save in exceptional cases, of the objective nature of the transaction in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 February 2013, Žamberk, C‑18/12, EU:C:2013:95, paragraphs 32 and 36 and the case-law cited).
Order of the Court of 24 March 1960. - De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. - Case 30-59.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00095

Dutch edition Page 00097

German edition Page 00103

Italian edition Page 00093

English special edition Page 00050

Spanish special edition Page 00051



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 30/59

HAVING REGARD TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF 18 FEBRUARY 1960 BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT BETWEEN

DE GEZAMENLIJKE STEENKOLENMIJNEN IN LIMBURG

AND

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY

Grounds

HAVING REGARD TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON 10 MARCH 1960 BY THE INTERVENER;

HAVING REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED ON 17 MARCH 1960 BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION AND ON 21 MARCH BY THE APPLICANT IN THE MAIN ACTION;

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT, THE LANGUAGE OF THE CASE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IS DUTCH .

NEVERTHELESS, PARAGRAPH 2 ( C ) OF THE SAID ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT 'AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE PARTIES, AND AFTER THE OPPOSITE PARTY AND THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL HAVE BEEN HEARD, THE COURT MAY BY WAY OF DEROGATION FROM SUBPARAGRAPHS ( A ) AND ( B ), AUTHORIZE ANOTHER OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES...TO BE USED AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE CASE FOR ALL OR PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS '.

Operative part

THE COURT COMPOSED OF : A . M . DONNER, PRESIDENT, L . DELVAUX AND R . ROSSI, PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS, O . RIESE AND CH . L . HAMMES, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : M . LAGRANGE

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER .

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY :

1 . IS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ITS SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSIONS DURING THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE, REQUIRED TO USE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CASE USED IN THE MAIN ACTION, NAMELY DUTCH;

2 . IS AUTHORIZED TO USE THE GERMAN LANGUAGE FOR THE ORAL PROCEDURE .
Order of the Court of 31 January 1962. - Société Fives Lille Cail and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. - Joined cases 19-60, 21-60, 2-61 and 3-61.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00627

Dutch edition Page 00665

German edition Page 00687

Italian edition Page 00613

English special edition Page 00314



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN JOINED CASES

19/60 - SOCIETE FIVES LILLE CAIL, PARIS,

21/60 - SOCIETE UNION SIDERURGIQUE DU NORD DE LA FRANCE ( USINOR ), PARIS,

2/61 - SOCIETE DES FORGES ET ATELIERS DU CREUSOT, PARIS,

3/61 - SOCIETE MARREL FRERES, RIVE-DE-GIER,

REPRESENTED BY JEAN-PIERRE ARON, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D'APPEL, PARIS,

V

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY,

REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ITALO TELCHINI, ACTING AS AGENT, AND PROFESSOR ANDRE DE LAUBADERE, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS, ACTING AS CO-AGENT,

Grounds

P . 315

ARTICLE 66 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS :

'1 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENTS THE COURT MAY, OF ITS OWN MOTION OR ON APPLICATION BY A PARTY MADE WITHIN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DELIVERY OF A JUDGMENT, RECTIFY CLERICAL MISTAKES, ERRORS IN CALCULATION AND OBVIOUS SLIPS IN IT .'

THIS PROVISION REFERS, AS A POSSIBLE GROUND FOR RECTIFICATION, TO PURELY MATERIAL ERRORS IN A JUDGMENT IN CASES WHERE NO DIFFICULTY ARISES CONCERNING THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF THE DECISION . RECTIFICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 66 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CANNOT PURPORT TO AMEND OR REVISE A PREVIOUS DECISION .

HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS DOES NOT SEEK RECTIFICATION OF AN ALLEGED OBVIOUS SLIP BUT THE AMENDMENT OF A FINDING IN LAW CONTAINED IN THE JUDGMENT .

IT IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .

Operative part

THE COURT

HEREBY;

1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 15 DECEMBER 1961;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO BEAR THE COSTS .
Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 1963. - M. Claude Lassalle v European Parliament. - Case 15-63 R.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00115

Dutch edition Page 00121

German edition Page 00125

Italian edition Page 00115

English special edition Page 00057



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 15/63 R

CLAUDE LASSALLE, AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY C . DURRENBERGER OF THE STRASBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT 13 RUE DE VIANDEN,

APPLICANT,

V

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 19 RUE BEAUMONT, LUXEMBOURG,

DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS THE APPLICATION TO SUSPEND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOTICE MUST BE UPHELD;

WHEREAS IF THE NORMAL STEPS WERE TAKEN TO FILL THE VACANCY IN QUESTION RIGHTS AND BENEFITS WOULD BE CONFERRED ON THIRD PARTIES WHICH IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO WITHDRAW EVEN IF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE PARLIAMENT WERE TO BE ANNULLED;

WHEREAS THE CONSEQUENCES OF FILLING THE VACANCY MIGHT THUS BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE APPLICANT;

WHEREAS IT HAS NOT BEEN ALLEGED THAT SUCH AN ORDER TO SUSPEND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOTICE OF VACANCY MIGHT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT;

WHEREAS THIS APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION IS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED;

Operative part

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT SHALL SUSPEND, UNTIL JUDGMENT IS GIVEN IN CONNEXION WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, ANY STEPS TO FILL THE VACANCY OF HEAD OF DIVISION IN QUESTION;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 1966. - Fulvio Fonzi v Commission of the EAEC. - Case 28-65.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00734

Dutch edition Page 00730

German edition Page 00759

Italian edition Page 00687

English special edition Page 00506



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 28/65

FULVIO FONZI

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY,

Grounds

WHEREAS ON 15 JANUARY 1966 THE DEFENDANT LODGED AT THE REGISTRY AN APPLICATION ON A PROCEDURAL ISSUE TO HAVE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS REMOVED FROM THE PROCEEDINGS AND TO HAVE CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPLICANT'S REPLY DECLARED INADMISSIBLE;

WHEREAS THE APPLICANT LODGED AT THE REGISTRY ON 5 FEBRUARY 1966 A REQUEST THAT THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE DEFENDANT'S SAID APPLICATION WITHOUT RESERVING ITS DECISION FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT;

WHEREAS IT SEEMS DESIRABLE TO SETTLE THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN HEADS 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE DEFENDANT'S CONCLUSIONS AT THE SAME TIME AS THE FINAL JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED;

WHEREAS, CONCERNING HEADS 1 AND 2 OF THE DEFENDANT'S CONCLUSIONS, THE RETENTION IN THE FILE OF THE DOCUMENT CONSTITUTING SCHEDULE 23 TO THE REPLY IS CAPABLE OF AMOUNTING TO A VIOLATION OF THE SECRECY OF THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EAEC IN A MATTER WHICH IS UNCONNECTED WITH THE PRESENT DISPUTE;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO WITHDRAW THIS DOCUMENT FROM THE PROCEEDINGS;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THAT THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT BE PLACED IN POSSESSION OF THE AUTHENTIC TEXT OF THE DECISION OF 24 JUNE 1964;

WHEREAS, ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT THE COMMISSION'S MINUTE-BOOK TO ENABLE IT TO EXAMINE THE MINUTES OF THE 249TH MEETING OF THE EAEC COMMISSION, APPROVED BY THE LATTER AT ITS 251ST MEETING;

Operative part

1 . THE APPLICATION ON A PROCEDURAL ISSUE LODGED BY THE DEFENDANT ON 15 JANUARY 1966 IS ALLOWED IN SO FAR AS IT REQUESTS THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTING SCHEDULE 23 TO THE REPLY;

2 . AS REGARDS THE REMAINDER OF THE REQUEST, THE DECISION IS RESERVED FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT;

3 . A TIME-LIMIT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT'S REJOINDER;

4 . THE PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BEFORE THE JUDGE - RAPPORTEUR ON TUESDAY 22 MARCH 1966 AT 2.30 P.M .; THE DEFENDANT SHALL PRODUCE THE COMMISSION'S MINUTE-BOOK IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO MAKE A COPY OF THE AUTHENTIC TEXT OF THE DECISION OF 24 JUNE 1964 CONCERNING THE APPLICANT;

5 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court of 16 June 1970. - SA Chanel v Cepeha Handelsmaatschappij NV. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam - Netherlands. - Case 31-68.



European Court reports 1970 Page 00404



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 31/68

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, ROTTERDAM, FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

SA CHANEL, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE ( FRANCE ),

AND

CEPEHA HANDELSMAATSCHAPPIJ NV, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN ROTTERDAM,

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE EEC TREATY ( AND OF THE RULES GOVERNING ITS APPLICATION ),

Grounds

BY JUDGMENT OF 3 DECEMBER 1968 RECEIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 13 DECEMBER 1968 THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, ROTTERDAM, MADE A REFERENCE TO THE COURT FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE EEC TREATY .

THE COURT WAS NOTIFIED BY COMMUNICATION OF 29 JANUARY 1969 FROM THE SAID COURT THAT AN APPEAL HAD BEEN LODGED AGAINST THAT JUDGMENT AND THAT AS A RESULT " EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS DEFERRED ".

FOLLOWING THIS COMMUNICATION THE COURT DECIDED, BY ORDER OF 3 JUNE 1969, TO SUSPEND JUDGMENT .

BY A LETTER RECEIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 12 JUNE 1970, THE REGISTRAR OF THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK INFORMED THE COURT THAT A JUDGMENT OF 6 MAY 1970 OF THE GERECHTSHOF, THE HAGUE, HAD AMENDED THE JUDGMENT OF 3 DECEMBER 1968 .

ACCORDINGLY THE REFERENCE FOR INTERPRETATION HAS LOST ITS PURPOSE .

THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WHICH HAD SUBMITTED ITS OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, ROTTERDAM, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

Operative part

THE COURT

HEREBY ORDERS :

CASE 31/68 IS REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER OF THE COURT .