ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
13

The referring court points out that Article 358 of the Law on the Civil Code of 23 April 1964, in its version applicable to the case in the main proceedings, was interpreted by the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) in its judgment of 16 May 2012, delivered in Case III CSK 273/11. The referring court states that the obligation in question in that case had been denominated in foreign currency and that the parties had not agreed on the acceptability of its conversion to Polish zlotys (PLN). As the debtor had not chosen to pay the sum due in Polish currency and there had been no agreement between the parties in this regard, the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) took the view that the creditor could demand payment only in foreign currency. According to the Supreme Court, only the debtor has the right to choose the currency in which that debtor’s obligation will be performed, whether the debtor performs it on time or is delayed or in default. In the event of the debtor’s default in respect of an obligation concerning a pecuniary sum expressed in foreign currency, the creditor only has the right to choose the exchange rate to be applied. Moreover, the creditor has the right to choose the exchange rate only if the debtor has chosen Polish currency.
4

Recitals 9, 21, 24, 26 and 29 of Regulation No 1259/2010 state: ‘(9) This regulation should create a clear, comprehensive legal framework in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation in the participating Member States, provide citizens with appropriate outcomes in terms of legal certainty, predictability and flexibility, and prevent a situation from arising where one of the spouses applies for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he or she considers more favourable to his or her own interests. … (21) Where no applicable law is chosen, and with a view to guaranteeing legal certainty and predictability and preventing a situation from arising in which one of the spouses applies for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he considers more favourable to his own interests, this regulation should introduce harmonised conflict-of-laws rules on the basis of a scale of successive connecting factors based on the existence of a close connection between the spouses and the law concerned. Such connecting factors should be chosen so as to ensure that proceedings relating to divorce or legal separation are governed by a law with which the spouses have a close connection. … (24) In certain situations, such as where the applicable law makes no provision for divorce or where it does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex, the law of the court seised should nevertheless apply. This, however, should be without prejudice to the public policy clause. … (26) Where this regulation refers to the fact that the law of the participating Member State whose court is seised does not provide for divorce, this should be interpreted to mean that the law of this Member State does not have the institute of divorce. In such a case, the court should not be obliged to pronounce a divorce by virtue of this regulation. … (29) … the objectives of this regulation[ are] the enhancement of legal certainty, predictability and flexibility in international matrimonial proceedings and hence the facilitation of the free movement of persons within the Union ...’
26

According to the settled case-law of the Court, the assessment of whether the terms are unfair is on a case-by-case basis and the obligation to take account of all of the other terms of the contract can be explained by the fact that the examination of the contested term must take into account all the elements that may be relevant to understanding that term in its context, in so far as, depending on the content of that contract, it may be necessary, for the purpose of assessing whether that term is unfair, to assess the cumulative effect of all the terms of that contract (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283, paragraph 95, and of 11 March 2020, Lintner, C‑511/17, EU:C:2020:188, paragraph 47). Not all contract terms are of equal importance, and the degree of interaction of a given term with other terms necessarily depends on their respective scope and on the extent to which each term contributes to any significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties arising under the contract at issue, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.
10

According to Article 37 of that directive, entitled ‘Duties and powers of the regulatory authority’: ‘1. The regulatory authority shall have the following duties: … (b) ensuring compliance of transmission and distribution system operators and, where relevant, system owners, as well as of any electricity undertakings, with their obligations under this directive and other relevant [EU] legislation, including as regards cross-border issues; … (h) monitoring compliance with and reviewing the past performance of network security and reliability rules and setting or approving standards and requirements for quality of service and supply or contributing thereto together with other competent authorities; … (m) monitoring the time taken by transmission and distribution system operators to make connections and repairs; (n) helping to ensure, together with other relevant authorities, that the consumer protection measures, including those set out in Annex I, are effective and enforced; … 4. Member States shall ensure that regulatory authorities are granted the powers enabling them to carry out the duties referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 6 in an efficient and expeditious manner. For this purpose, the regulatory authority shall have at least the following powers: (a) to issue binding decisions on electricity undertakings; … (d) to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties on electricity undertakings not complying with their obligations under this Directive or any relevant legally binding decisions of the regulatory authority or of the Agency, or to propose that a competent court impose such penalties. This shall include the power to impose or propose the imposition of penalties of up to 10 % of the annual turnover of the transmission system operator on the transmission system operator or of up to 10 % of the annual turnover of the vertically integrated undertaking on the vertically integrated undertaking, as the case may be, for non-compliance with their respective obligations pursuant to this Directive; and (e) appropriate rights of investigations and relevant powers of instructions for dispute settlement under paragraphs 11 and 12. … 11. Any party having a complaint against a transmission or distribution system operator in relation to that operator’s obligations under this Directive may refer the complaint to the regulatory authority which, acting as dispute settlement authority, shall issue a decision within a period of two months after receipt of the complaint. This period may be extended by two months where additional information is sought by the regulatory authorities. That period may be further extended with the agreement of the complainant. The regulatory authority’s decision shall have binding effect unless and until overruled on appeal. …’
17

According to that court, the first and the third conditions are satisfied in this case. First, it is apparent from the provisions of the EDA and it is moreover common ground between the parties that the royalties and licence fees paid in return for the exclusive right to distribute the goods concerned in Austria were not included in the purchase price of the goods being valued. Secondly, the payment of the compensation at issue in the main proceedings also constitutes a condition of sale. Where the seller of the imported goods is also the licensor, it should be presumed that the licensor also requires the buyer, who is also the licensee, to pay royalties and licence fees in addition to the price. According to the referring court, it must therefore be held that Habanos would not have supplied the goods intended for distribution in Austria or, in any event, not under the contractual terms agreed without payment of that compensation. In that regard, the fact that that obligation would have expired after four years is irrelevant and does not mean that the buyer would have been granted an exclusive distribution right for that period without payment of that compensation. It is also irrelevant that the compensation at issue in the main proceedings was agreed in a framework agreement, such as the EDA, since it provides for the payment of that compensation in principle for all future single purchases.
12

It is apparent from the order for reference that the following contractual terms were applicable to that agreement: – Article 5 of the loan agreement at issue provided for an annual interest rate of 7.4% for the first year of the loan, then a current interest rate corresponding to the variable benchmark rate displayed at the bank’s premises, plus 1.50 percentage points; – under Article 2.6 of the general terms and conditions of the loan, annexed to that agreement, during the loan period the current interest rate could vary depending on changes in the ‘servicing of the customer’s debt’ to the bank; – under Article 2.10(a) of those general terms and conditions, during the period of the loan the bank could change the interest without the borrower’s consent, depending on the cost of providing the loan, the new interest rate being applicable to the balance of the loan from the date of the change. A change to the variable interest rate meant recalculating the interest due; – in accordance with Article 2.10(b) of those general terms and conditions, with regard to loans with a variable interest rate calculated on the basis of a LIBOR or Euribor reference rate, the interest rate could be varied depending on changes in that rate; – under Article 2.11 of the general terms and conditions, the new interest rate, which could be adjusted every six months, was to be displayed at the premises of the bank from the date on which the change applied and the resulting interest rate was to be applied to the balance of the loan as at the date of the change; – in cases of credit lines, the borrower became aware of the change in the annual interest rate and of the updated repayment schedule by means of a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or a statement of account provided to the borrower free of charge at the bank; – if, following a change in the annual interest rate made by that institution, the borrower did not repay the balance of the loan and the corresponding interest within 10 days from the date of becoming aware of the change, it was deemed to have accepted the new interest rate.
3

Part II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65) contained a Title III on ‘Controls’, which included Article 34 of that regulation relating to ‘Determination of areas’. Article 34(2) and (4) provided: ‘2. The total area of an agricultural parcel may be taken into account provided that it is fully utilised in accordance with the customary standards of the Member State or region concerned. In other cases the area actually utilised shall be taken into account. In respect of the regions where certain features, in particular hedges, ditches and walls, are traditionally part of good agriculture cropping or utilisation practices, the Member States may decide that the corresponding area is to be considered part of the fully utilised area on condition that it does not exceed a total width to be determined by the Member States. That width must correspond to a traditional width in the region in question and shall not exceed 2 metres. However, where Member States notified to the Commission, in conformity with the third subparagraph of Article 30(2) of [Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18)], prior to the entry into force of this Regulation, a width greater than 2 metres, this width may still be applied. … 4. Without prejudice to Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 [of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16)], an agricultural parcel that contains trees shall be considered as an eligible area for the purposes of the area-related aid schemes provided that agricultural activities or, where applicable, the production envisaged can be carried out in a similar way as on parcels without trees in the same area.’
38

In those circumstances, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) In so far as they are intended to protect the balance between supply and demand for dairy products on the EU market, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation No 856/84, Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 3950/92, Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Regulation No 1788/2003 and Articles 55, 64 and 65 of [the Single CMO Regulation], and the annexes thereto, to be interpreted as excluding from the calculation of “milk quotas” production intended for the export of PDO cheeses to countries outside the European Union, in line with the objectives aimed at the protection of such products laid down by Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92, as confirmed by Regulation No 510/2006 and Articles 4 and 13 of [Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1)], in accordance with the principles set out in Articles 32, 39, 40 and 41 TFEU? (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do those rules, thus interpreted, preclude the inclusion in individual reference quantities of quotas of milk intended for the production of PDO cheeses for export outside the European Union, this being the effect of Article 2 of [Decree-Law No 49/2003], and Article 2 of [Law No 468/1992], in so far as that provision is referred to in Article 2 of Decree-Law No 49/2003? In the alternative, in the event that that interpretation is not considered to be correct: (3) Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation No 856/84, Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 3950/92, Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Regulation No 1788/2003 and Articles 55, 64 and 65 of [the Single CMO Regulation], and the annexes thereto (as well as the national Italian transposition provisions set out in [Article 2 of] [Decree-Law No 49/2003], and Article 2 of [Law No 468/1992], in so far as that provision is referred to in Article 2 of Decree-Law No 49/2003), which include rather than exclude in the calculation of the quantities allocated to each Member State milk used for the production of PDO cheeses exported to or intended for markets outside the European Union, in so far as such exports are concerned, at odds with the protection objectives set out in Regulation No 2081/92, which protects PDO production, with particular reference to Article 13, as confirmed by Regulation No 510/2006 and by Regulation No 1151/2012, and also with reference to the protection objectives set out in Article 4 of the latter regulation, and also at odds with Articles 32, 39, 40 and 41 TFEU, the principles of legal certainty, [protection of] legitimate expectations, proportionality and non-discrimination and the principle of freedom to conduct business when exporting goods outside the European Union?’
15

It is apparent from the documents before the Court that Dexia terminated the leasing agreements early on account of late payment, in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of the agreements at issue in the main proceedings. On the termination of those agreements, Dexia drew up the final statements pursuant to Articles 6 and 15 of those specific terms and conditions. Those articles read as follows: ‘6. If (a), despite a letter of formal notice, the lessee does not pay one or more monthly instalments or does not perform any other obligation arising under the agreement or under any other leasing agreement similar to the agreement at issue in the present case, or if (b) the lessee petitions for the winding up of the bank or if the bank is declared insolvent, the bank is authorised to terminate the contract and all similar leasing agreements with immediate effect and to require payment of all the outstanding balance of the total amount(s) under the existing leasing agreement(s), which are similar to the present agreement, and to sell the shares on the stock exchange or otherwise at a time determined by the bank. The bank shall deduct the proceeds of sale from the sum owed to it by the lessee. Any positive balance shall be paid by the bank to the lessee. 15. … In the event of termination of the agreement, the lessee’s claim shall consist of an amount equal to the market value of the shares on the date of termination, after deduction of an amount corresponding to the present value of the unpaid balance of the total amount leased. The present value is calculated in accordance with Article 7A:1576e(2) of the BW.’
27

In the present case, the referring court has set out the reasons for its view that the interpretation of the provisions of both the CISA, relating to searches in the SIS, and the Schengen Borders Code, requiring all third-country nationals to be in possession of a travel document valid throughout the period of residence applied for, is necessary in order to resolve the dispute before it. It has also provided the Court with sufficient factual and legal elements for the Court to give a useful answer to the questions referred. Thus, it does not appear that the questions of interpretation of those provisions bear no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or that they relate to a hypothetical problem. Furthermore, the link between the provisions of EU law of which an interpretation is sought and the national provisions applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, relating to the requirement of proof of the identity of an applicant for a residence permit, is clear in the light of the national case-law on those requirements, referred to in paragraph 21 of this judgment, the objective of which, stated by the referring court itself, is to satisfy the commitments arising from the CISA and the Schengen Borders Code.
32

Finally, this interpretation of the first sentence of Article 11(6) is borne out by the objective pursued by that regulation. As is apparent from recitals 6 and 8 thereof, the regulation seeks to ensure that the EU competition rules are applied effectively by empowering the competition authorities of the Member States to apply that law in parallel with the Commission. The parallel application of those rules must, however, also be consistent and ensure that the network of public authorities in charge of the implementation of those rules is managed in the best possible way. As recital 17 of that regulation states, it is in order to ensure those objectives that there is provision for the national competition authorities to be relieved of their competence in favour of the Commission where the latter initiates proceedings. Furthermore, the parallel application of those rules cannot be at the expense of undertakings. National competition authorities being relieved of their competence makes it possible to protect the undertakings from parallel proceedings brought by those authorities and the Commission (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission, 60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 18, and order of 29 January 2020, Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission, C‑418/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:43, paragraph 73).
7

Article 16 of that regulation, entitled ‘Reductions and exclusions in relation to the size of area’, provided, in paragraph 2, the first and second subparagraph of paragraph 3 and the first, second and third subparagraphs of paragraph 5: ‘2. For the purpose of this Article, areas declared by a beneficiary which receive the same rate of aid under a certain area-related measure shall be considered as forming one crop group. … 3. If the area determined for a crop group is found to be greater than that declared in the payment claim, the area declared shall be used for the calculation of the aid. If the area declared in the payment claim exceeds the area determined for that crop group, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined for that crop group. … … 5. In the case referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined reduced by twice the difference found if that difference is more than either 3% or two hectares, but not more than 20% of the area determined. If the difference is more than 20% of the area determined, no aid shall be granted for the crop group concerned. If the difference is more than 50%, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to the difference between the area declared in the payment claim and the area determined.’