ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as a nine-hour night-time curfew, in conjunction with the monitoring of the person concerned by means of an electronic tag, an obligation to report to a police station at fixed times on a daily basis or several times a week, and a ban on applying for foreign travel documents, are not, in principle, having regard to the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of all those measures, so restrictive as to give rise to a deprivation of liberty comparable to that arising from imprisonment and thus to be classified as ‘detention’ within the meaning of that provision, which it is nevertheless for the referring court to ascertain.

When applying Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the judicial authority of the Member State which issued the European arrest warrant is required to consider whether the measures taken against the person concerned in the executing Member State are to be treated in the same way as a deprivation of liberty and therefore constitute detention within the meaning of Article 26(1). If, in carrying out that examination, the judicial authority comes to the conclusion that that is the case, Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 requires that the whole of the period during which those measures were applied be deducted from the period of detention which that person would be required to serve in the Member State which issued the European arrest warrant.

(see paras 40, 44, 46-47, 53-55, 57, operative part)
Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for a visa with limited territorial validity made on humanitarian grounds by a third-country national, on the basis of Article 25 of the code, to the representation of the Member State of destination that is within the territory of a third country, with a view to lodging, immediately upon his or her arrival in that Member State, an application for international protection and, thereafter, to staying in that Member State for more than 90 days in a 180-day period, does not fall within the scope of that code but, as EU law currently stands, solely within that of national law.

It should be added that to conclude otherwise, when the Visa Code is intended for the issuing of visas for stays on the territories of Member States not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period, would be tantamount to allowing third-country nationals to lodge applications for visas on the basis of the Visa Code in order to obtain international protection in the Member State of their choice, which would undermine the general structure of the system established by Regulation No 604/2013.

It is also important to note that to conclude otherwise would mean that Member States are required, on the basis of the Visa Code, de facto to allow third-country nationals to submit applications for international protection to the representations of Member States that are within the territory of a third country. Indeed, whereas the Visa Code is not intended to harmonise the laws of Member States on international protection, it should be noted that the measures adopted by the European Union on the basis of Article 78 TFEU that govern the procedures for applications for international protection do not impose such an obligation and, on the contrary, exclude from their scope applications made to the representations of Member States. Accordingly, it is apparent from Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/32 that that directive applies to applications for international protection made in the territory, including at the border, in the territorial waters or in the transit zones of the Member States, but not to requests for diplomatic or territorial asylum submitted to the representations of Member States. Similarly, it follows from Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 604/2013 that that regulation imposes an obligation on Member States only to examine any application for international protection made on the territory of a Member State, including at the border or in the transit zones, and that the procedures laid down in that regulation apply exclusively to such applications for international protection.

(see paragraphs 48, 49, 51 and operative part)
The opinion delivered by a supreme court at the beginning of the transposition period of Directive 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, which confers on the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an action brought against a custody decision the ability to decide whether, during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings, the continued custody of an accused must be subject to a review by the court of whether, in addition, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he committed the offence with which he is charged is not likely seriously to compromise, after the expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of the directive, the attainment of the objectives prescribed by that directive.

That opinion, which found that there was a conflict between the provisions of the ECHR and those of national criminal procedural law prohibiting, during the trial stage of the proceedings and when the court is reviewing a provisional remand in custody, examination of whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused person committed the offence, does not require the national court hearing actions against the continuation of custody to adopt, during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings, a particular decision. On the contrary, that opinion leaves those courts free to apply the provisions of the ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, or those of the national criminal procedural law.

(see paras 34, 36, operative part)
Case C‑368/16

Assens Havn

v

Navigators Management (UK) Limited

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident — Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 13 July 2017

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage — Not possible to invoke that agreement against the victim who may bring a direct action against the insurer

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 13 and 14)

Point 5 of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a victim entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the party which caused the harm which he has suffered is not bound by an agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and that party.

The extension to victims of the constraints of agreements on jurisdiction based on the combined provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation No 44/2001 could compromise the objective pursued by Chapter II, Section 3, thereof, namely to protect the economically and legally weaker party (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 September 2009, Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, C‑347/08, EU:C:2009:561, paragraph 40).

(see paras 40, 41, operative part)
It follows from a combined reading of the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the third subparagraph of Article 297(2) TFEU that, so far as actions for annulment are concerned, the date to be taken into account for the purposes of determining the starting point of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings is the date of publication, when such publication, which is a precondition for the coming into force of the measure, is provided for in that Treaty, and the date of notification in the other cases referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 297(2) TFEU, including the date of decisions which specify those to whom they are addressed. It follows that the notification of a measure is not subsidiary to the publication of that measure in the Official Journal of the European Union, for the purposes of determining the starting point of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings applicable to the addressee of that measure.

(see paras 36, 38)
Case C‑54/16

Vinyls Italia SpA

v

Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 13 — Acts detrimental to all the creditors — Conditions in which the act in question may be challenged — Act subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings — Act which is not open to challenge on the basis of that law — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Article 3(3) — Law chosen by the parties — Location of all the elements of the situation concerned in the State of the opening of proceedings — Effect)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 8 June 2017

Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Insolvency proceedings—Regulation No 1346/2000—Detrimental acts—Applicable law—Exception to the general rule of applying the lex fori concursus—Procedural arrangements for raising an objection—Application of the procedural law of the Member State of the court hearing the action to set aside—Condition—Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 13) Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Insolvency proceedings—Regulation No 1346/2000—Detrimental acts—Applicable law—Exception to the general rule of applying the lex fori concursus—Conditions under which applicable—Act unchallengeable on the basis of the lex causae—Burden of proof borne by the defendant in an action relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of an act—Obligation to plead that circumstances enabling the act in question to be challenged do not exist and to bear the burden of proof in that regard (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 13) Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Insolvency proceedings—Regulation No 1346/2000—Detrimental acts—Applicable law—Exception to the general rule of applying the lex fori concursus—Scope—Law applicable to a contract, chosen by the parties, being the law of a Member State other than the Member State of the location of all the other elements of the situation—Included—Non-applicability of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 593/2008 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 593/2008, Art. 3(3); Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 13) Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Insolvency proceedings—Regulation No 1346/2000—Detrimental acts—Applicable law—Exception to the general rule of applying the lex fori concursus—Scope—Law applicable to a contract, chosen by the parties, being the law of a Member State other than the Member State of the location of all the elements relevant to the situation—Included—Exception—Abusive or fraudulent choice of the applicable law—Verification a matter for the national court (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 13)
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 36, 61-63)
Case C‑556/16

Lutz GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Subheading 6212 20 00 (Panty girdles) — Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature — Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 19 October 2017

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Knickers characterised by reduced horizontal elasticity, not containing inelastic elements incorporated into them — Classification under subheading 6212 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature — Conditions

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 927/2012, Annex 1)

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that knickers characterised by reduced horizontal elasticity, but which do not contain inelastic elements incorporated into them, may be classified under subheading 6212 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature if an examination establishes that they have substantially reduced horizontal elasticity in order to support the human body and create a slimming effect on the silhouette.

(see para. 54, operative part)
Case C‑641/16

Tünkers France

and

Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH

v

Expert France

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Court having jurisdiction — Action for unfair competition brought in the context of insolvency proceedings — Action brought by a company having its registered office in another Member State against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings — Action not part of the proceedings or action deriving directly from those proceedings and closely connected with them)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 9 November 2017

Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 44/2001—Scope—Matters excluded—Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings—Concept—Action deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and closely connected with them—Applicability of Regulation No 1346/2000 (Council Regulations No 1346/2000 and No 44/2001, Art. 1(2)(b)) Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Insolvency proceedings—Regulation No 1346/2000—Scope—Action for unfair competition against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings—Not included (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 3(1))
Case C‑281/16

Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap

v

Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Raad van State (Netherlands))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 — List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region — Reduction of the size of a site — Scientific error — Validity)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 19 October 2017

Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Sites of Community importance — Reduction of the size of a site at the request of the Member State concerned — No scientific error at the time the site was placed on the list — Obligation for the Commission to dismiss the request — Adoption of a decision to reduce the size of the site concerned — Not permissible — Annulment

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 4(1); Commission Decision 2015/72)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is invalid, in so far as, by that decision, the Haringvliet site (NL 1000015) was placed on that list without the inclusion of the Leenheerenpolder.

In that respect, the Netherlands Government confirmed, at the hearing, that the Kingdom of the Netherlands had not invoked the existence of a ‘scientific error’ at the time it submitted to the Commission its proposal to reduce the size of the Haringvliet SCI. Furthermore, for its part, the Commission has provided to the Court no conclusive scientific evidence capable of proving that such an error had vitiated the initial proposal. Therefore, at the occasion of the eighth update of the list of SCIs in the Atlantic biogeographical region by Implementing Decision 2015/72, the Commission could not, lawfully, rely on the existence of an initial scientific error in order to place the Haringvliet site on that list without including the Leenheerenpolder.

(see paras 38-41, operative part)
Case C‑287/16

Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA

v

Caisse Suisse de Compensation and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Second Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 2(1) — Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements concerning the ownership of the vehicle and the identity of its usual driver — Policyholder — No economic interest in the conclusion of that contract — Insurance contract null and void — Whether that nullity may be invoked against third-party victims)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 20 July 2017

Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance — National legislation making it possible to invoke against third-party victims the nullity of insurance contracts concluded on the basis of false statements made by the policyholder — Not permissible

(Council Directives 72/166, Art. 3(1), and 84/5, Art. 2(1))

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which would have the effect of making it possible to invoke against third-party victims, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the nullity of a contract for motor vehicle insurance against civil liability arising as a result of the policyholder initially making false statements concerning the identity of the owner and of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned or from the fact that the person for whom or on whose behalf that insurance contract was concluded had no economic interest in the conclusion of that contract.

(see para. 37, operative part)
Case C‑383/16

Vion Livestock BV

v

Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets — Protection of animals during transport — Export refunds — Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Obligation to keep up to date a copy of the journey log until the arrival of the animals at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination — Recovery of amounts over-paid)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 October 2017

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Compliance with the EU legislation on the welfare of live animals during transport — Obligation to keep up to date a copy of the journey log until the arrival of the animals at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination — Non-compliance — Consequences — Repayment of amounts wrongly received

(Council Regulation No 1/2005, Annex II, points 3, 7 and 8; Commission Regulation No 817/2010, Arts 2(2), 3(1) and 2, and 7)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, read in conjunction with Articles 3(1) and (2) and 2(2) of Regulation No 817/2010, and with points 3, 7 and 8 of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, must be interpreted as meaning that repayment of export refunds under Regulation No 817/2010 may be required where the transporter of bovine animals has not kept a copy of the journey log provided for in Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 up to date until the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination.

(see para. 49, operative part)
Case C‑500/16

Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

v

Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4(3) TEU — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 20 December 2017

EU law — Direct effect — National taxes incompatible with EU law — Repayment — Procedures — Application of national law — Conditions — Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Tax declared not payable by a judgment of the Court delivered after the expiry of the limitation period for claims for repayment — Application of that period — Lawfulness

(Art. 4(3) TEU)

The principles of equivalence and effectiveness, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a request for a refund of an overpayment of value added tax (VAT) to be refused where that request was submitted by the taxable person after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, although it follows from a judgment of the Court, delivered after the expiry of that period, that the payment of the VAT which is the subject of that request for a refund was not payable.

(see para. 52, operative part)
4.

Competition—Fines—Amount—Determination—Determination of the basic amount—Determination of the value of sales—Sales carried out in direct or indirect relation to the infringement—Cartel in the international air freight forwarding services sector—Cartel regarding freight forwarding services as a package of services—Account taken of the value of sales made in the provision of freight forwarding services as a package of services—Lawfulness (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Communication 2006/C 210/02, point 13) (see paras 50-52)