ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
17

In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Articles 63, 64 and 65 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that: (1) the fact that a person insured under a social security scheme in a third country outside the European Union, other than members of the [EEA] or [the Swiss Confederation], is subject to contributions on income from assets provided for under French legislation and coming within the scope of Regulation [No 883/2004], in the same way as persons insured under the social security scheme in France, whereas a person insured under the social security scheme of a Member State other than [the French Republic] cannot be subject to those contributions, taking into account the provisions of that regulation, constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital from and to third countries, which is in principle prohibited by Article 63 TFEU; (2) if that first question is answered in the affirmative, can that restriction on the movement of capital, which arises as a combined result of French legislation, which imposes the disputed contributions on all recipients of certain income from assets, without in itself making any distinction as to the place in which they are insured under a social security scheme, and a European Union act of secondary legislation, be regarded as compatible with the requirements of the said article of the [FEU Treaty], in particular: – in light of Article 64(1) [TFEU], for the movement of capital coming within the scope of that paragraph, on the ground that the restriction arises due to the application of the principle that the legislation of a single Member State is to apply, as provided in Article 11 of the Regulation [No 883/2004], introduced into EU law by Article 13 of Regulation [No 1408/71], in other words, on a date prior to 31 December 1993, even though the contributions on income from the assets in question were established or made applicable after 31 December 1993; – in light of Article 65(1) [TFEU], on the grounds that the French tax legislation, when applied in a way compliant with Regulation [No 883/2004] of 29 April 2004, creates a distinction between taxable persons whose situations differ in relation to the criterion for being insured under a social security scheme; – in light of the existence of overriding reasons in the public interest to justify a restriction on the free circulation of capital, derived from the fact that the provisions that might be regarded as restricting the movement of capital from or to a third country correspond to the aim of Regulation [No 883/2004] of allowing free movement of workers within the European Union?’
53

Thirdly, the Republic of Bulgaria submits that the Commission does not provide any evidence in support of its claim. It submits that there are no definitive scientific data demonstrating the need to classify the whole of IBA Rila as an SPA and that the data on which the Commission’s action is founded are not reliable or up to date. In March 2014, the Republic of Bulgaria provided the Commission with data from the report referred to in Article 12 of the Birds Directive relating to the bird species in question, which data were not taken into account in either the reasoned opinion or the application. In that regard, that Member State sends a series of data which, it alleges, cast doubt on the accuracy of the BDZP data used by the Commission, such that it is necessary to collect additional scientific data. The data from the BDZP themselves give rise to doubts as to the need to classify the entirety of IBA Rila as an SPA. In that context, even though it is for the BDZP to make the selection and the initial assessment of regions which are IBAs in Bulgaria, it has not submitted either to the competent Bulgarian authorities or to scientific experts the information which it holds concerning the ornithological data for the areas outside the designated SPAs.
13

The Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg) states that whether the claim is to succeed depends on the interpretation to be given to Article 16(a) to (c) of Regulation No 110/2008. It has therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does “indirect commercial use” of a registered geographical indication of a spirit drink in accordance with Article 16(a) of [Regulation No 110/2008] require that the registered geographical indication be used in identical or phonetically and/or visually similar form, or is it sufficient that the disputed element evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the registered geographical indication or the geographical area? If the latter is sufficient: When determining whether there is any “indirect commercial use”, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded then also play a role, or can that context not counteract indirect commercial use of the registered geographical indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product? (2) Does an “evocation” of a registered geographical indication in accordance with Article 16(b) of [Regulation No 110/2008] require that there be a phonetic and/or visual similarity between the registered geographical indication and the disputed element, or is it sufficient that the disputed element evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the registered geographical indication or the geographical area? If the latter is sufficient: When determining whether there is any “evocation”, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded also play a role, or can that context not counteract any unlawful evocation of the registered geographical indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product? (3) When determining whether there is any “other false or misleading indication” in accordance with Article 16(c) of [Regulation No 110/2008], does the context in which the disputed element is embedded play a role, or can that context not counteract any misleading indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?’
6

Under recitals 1 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air transport passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 344, p. 15): ‘(1) Action by the [European Union] in the field of air transport should aim, as a priority, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers from safety risks. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general. … (13) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computer reservation systems (CRS) [(OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 (OJ 1999 L 40, p. 1)] entitles consumers booking a flight via a computer reservation system to be informed of the identity of the operating air carrier. Nevertheless, even in scheduled air transport, industry practices exist, such as wet leasing, or code sharing if booked without a CRS, where the air carrier which has sold the flight under its name does not actually operate it and where there is currently no legal right for the passenger to be informed of the identity of the air carrier actually performing the service.’
10

Mr Guida was employed by PL Italy in 1982 and posted in 1996 to the affiliated Polish company, Petronas Lubricants Poland sp. z o.o. (‘PL Poland’), wholly owned by PL Italy and in which he carried out the duties of Director-General, with the rank of director as from 1998. In 2001, he concluded a parallel fixed-term employment contract with PL Poland, subject to Polish law, which was extended on several successive occasions, the last extension expiring on 30 April 2016. By two letters of 17 and 29 April 2014, he was informed of a number of complaints of a disciplinary nature against him. He has been accused, in particular, of requesting and receiving on several occasions, from PL Poland, reimbursement of expenses for supposed business travel, which in reality related to periods during which he was on leave; of misleading PL Italy in respect of payment of sums intended to guarantee the net value of his salary received in Polish zlotys for 2012 and 2013, by notifying it of an exchange rate between the Polish zloty and the euro more favourable to him than the official rate; and of unduly causing PL Poland to pay compensation, annually, for leave entitlement not used between 2008 and 2014.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 146/2008 of 14 February 2008, and Article 23(1) 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 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of payments granted or to be granted in the year during which that non-compliance occurred. Article 66(1) 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 Regulation No 1782/2003 and Article 70(8)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in 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, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments thus calculated are to be applied to payments received or to be received in the calendar year during which the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules is found.
8

Under Article 27 of that directive, ‘Open procedure’: ‘1. In open procedures, any interested economic operator may submit a tender in response to a call for competition. The minimum time limit for the receipt of tenders shall be 35 days from the date on which the contract notice was sent. The tender shall be accompanied by the information for qualitative selection that is requested by the contracting authority. 2. Where contracting authorities have published a prior information notice which was not itself used as a means of calling for competition, the minimum time limit for the receipt of tenders, as laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article, may be shortened to 15 days, provided that all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the prior information notice included all the information required for the contract notice in section I of part B of Annex V, in so far as that information was available at the time the prior information notice was published; (b) the prior information notice was sent for publication between 35 days and 12 months before the date on which the contract notice was sent. 3. Where a state of urgency duly substantiated by the contracting authority renders impracticable the time limit laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, it may fix a time limit which shall be not less than 15 days from the date on which the contract notice was sent. 4. The contracting authority may reduce by five days the time limit for receipt of tenders set out in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article where it accepts that tenders may be submitted by electronic means in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 22(1), and Article 22(5) and (6).’
38

As stated by the Advocate General in point 51 of his Opinion, in the context of that examination, the referring court will, in particular, have to verify whether the sale on the online platform was carried out in an organised manner, whether that sale was intended to generate profit, whether the seller had technical information and expertise relating to the products which she offered for sale which the consumer did not necessarily have, with the result that she was placed in a more advantageous position than the consumer, whether the seller had a legal status which enabled her to engage in commercial activities and to what extent the online sale was connected to the seller’s commercial or professional activity, whether the seller was subject to VAT, whether the seller, acting on behalf of a particular trader or on her own behalf or through another person acting in her name and on her behalf, received remuneration or an incentive; whether the seller purchased new or second-hand goods in order to resell them, thus making that a regular, frequent and/or simultaneous activity in comparison with her usual commercial or business activity, whether the goods for sale were all of the same type or of the same value, and, in particular, whether the offer was concentrated on a small number of goods.
10

Article 3 of the Zahlungsdienstegesetz (Law on payment services) (BGBl. I, 66/2009 (‘the ZaDiG’) provides: ‘For the purposes of this law, the following definitions shall apply: … 5. payment transaction: an act, initiated by the payer or by the payee, of placing, transferring or withdrawing funds, irrespective of any underlying obligations in the relationship between the payer and the payee; 6. payment system: a funds transfer system with formal and standardised arrangements and common rules for the processing, clearing or settlement of payment transactions; 7. payer: a person who holds a payment account and allows a payment order from that payment account, or, where there is no payment account, a person who gives a payment order; 8. payee: a person who is the intended recipient of funds which have been the subject of a payment transaction; … 10. payment service user: a person making use of a payment service in the capacity of either payer or payee, or both; 11. consumer: a natural person who, in payment service contracts covered by this law, is acting for purposes other than his trade, business or profession; … 13. payment account: an account held in the name of one or more payment service users which is used for the execution of payment transactions.’
13

In light of ENAE’s difficult financial situation, the Hellenic Republic argued that the full reimbursement of the aid at issue might cause it to go bankrupt and, therefore, affect its military activities, including the construction and modernisation of ‘HDW Type 214’ and ‘HDW Type 209’ submarines, so that it could adversely affect the essential interests of the security of the Hellenic Republic, within the meaning of Article 346 TFEU. In order to avoid such a possibility, after negotiations between June and October 2010 and commitment letters from ENAE and the Hellenic Republic, dated 27 and 29 October 2010 respectively, the Commission, the Hellenic Republic and ENAE reached an agreement under which Decision 2009/610 was deemed to have been correctly implemented subject to compliance with the following undertakings: – ENAE’s civil activities to be suspended for a period of 15 years from 1 October 2010; – the assets related to ENAE’s civil activities to be sold and the proceeds of the sale paid to the Greek authorities. If the auction did not result in the sale of all or part of the civil assets, ENAE was to transfer them to the Greek State as an alternative means of implementing the obligation to recover the aid at issue. In that case, the Greek State had to ensure that none of those shares were reacquired by ENAE or its current or future shareholders during the abovementioned period of 15 years. – ENAE was to give up the concession of a dry dock, the use of which was unnecessary for the pursuit of its military activities. The Greek State was to ensure that that concession and the land concerned would not be reacquired by ENAE or its current or future shareholders during the abovementioned 15 year period; – ENAE was to waive the indemnification guarantee set out in Article 16 of Decision 2009/610 and would not initiate any proceedings based on that guarantee or in connection with it. The Hellenic Republic was to invoke the invalidity of that guarantee before any court or tribunal; – in the 6 months following the acceptance of the list of commitments by the Commission, the Hellenic Republic was to provide evidence of the restitution of the dry dock to the Greek State and up-to-date information relating to the sale at auction of ENAE’s civil assets. In addition the Hellenic Republic was to notify the Commission each year as to the progress of the recovery of incompatible State aid, inter alia by submitting evidence that ENAE no longer pursued civil activities, information on the ownership and use of the assets returned to the Greek State and the use of the land covered by the concession of the dry dock.
11

Paragraph 25a of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax, the ‘UStG’) provides: ‘(1) Supplies within the meaning of Paragraph 1(1)(1) of movable tangible property shall be taxed in accordance with the following provisions (margin scheme) if the following conditions are met: 1. The trader is a dealer. A dealer shall be deemed to be a person who deals with movable tangible property in the course of his business or sells such property in his own name by public auction. 2. The objects were delivered to the dealer on the territory of the Community. In respect of that supply, (a) turnover tax was not payable or was not levied pursuant to Paragraph 19(1); or (b) the margin scheme was applied. …’ (2) The dealer may declare to the Tax Office no later than upon submission of the first advance return of a calendar year that he will apply the margin scheme from the beginning of that calendar year also to the following goods: … 2. works of art, if the supply to him was subject to tax and was not carried out by a dealer. The declaration shall be binding on the dealer for a period of at least two calendar years. (3) The transaction shall be assessed on the basis of the amount by which the sale price exceeds the purchase price of the goods; … … (7) The following special provisions shall apply: 1. The margin scheme shall not apply (a) to supplies of goods which the dealer has acquired within the Community, if the exemption in respect of intra-Community supplies has been applied to the supply of the goods to the dealer elsewhere in the territory of the Community, …’
15

Article 3 of the Dublin III Regulation provides: ‘1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border or in the transit zones. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible. 2. Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it. Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the [Charter], the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible. Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible. 3. Any Member State shall retain the right to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.’
32

In those circumstances, the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Labour and Social Security Court, Vienna) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Is Article 1 of Regulation … No 1215/2012 … to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings involving the assertion of claims by [BUAK] for wage supplements against employers as a result of the posting to Austria of workers without a habitual place of work in Austria for the purposes of performing work or in connection with the hiring-out of workers, or against employers established outside Austria as a result of the employment of workers with a habitual place of work in Austria, constitute “civil and commercial matters” to which the aforementioned regulation applies, even where such claims by BUAK for wage supplements concern employment relationships governed by private law and serve to cover workers’ claims to annual leave and payment in respect of annual leave, governed by private law and arising from employment relationships with employers, but nevertheless – both the amount of the workers’ claims against BUAK for annual leave pay and that of BUAK’s claims against employers for wage supplements are determined not by contract or collective bargaining agreement but, instead, by decree of a Federal Minister, – the wage supplements owed by employers to BUAK serve to cover not only the expenses for the payment in respect of annual leave payable to workers but also BUAK’s expenses for administrative costs, and – in connection with the pursuit and enforcement of its claims for such wage supplements, BUAK has more extensive powers by law than a private person, in that – employers are required to submit reports to BUAK on specific occasions as well as at monthly intervals, using communication channels set up by BUAK, to take part in and allow BUAK’s inspection measures, grant BUAK access to wage and business records and other documents, and provide information to BUAK, failing which a fine may be imposed, and – in the event that an employer breaches its obligations to provide information, BUAK is entitled to calculate the wage supplements owed by the employer on the basis of BUAK’s own investigations, whereby, in that case, BUAK has a claim for wage supplements in the amount calculated by BUAK, irrespective of the actual circumstances of the posting or employment?’