ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
25

In those circumstances, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, where a debtor under a (joint) credit agreement with a bank has, on his own, made the repayments due under that credit agreement, a reimbursement claim (compensation/recourse claim) brought by that debtor against the other debtor under that credit agreement constitutes a derived (secondary) contractual claim arising from that credit agreement? (2) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is the place of performance of a debtor’s reimbursement claim (compensation/recourse claim) against the other debtor arising out of the underlying credit agreement to be determined: (a) in accordance with the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (“provision of services”) or (b) in accordance with Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a), of Regulation No 1215/2012 on the basis of the lex causae? (3) If Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative: Is the service characterising the credit agreement the granting of the loans by the bank, and is, therefore, the place of performance of that service determined in accordance with the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 by the registered office of the bank, if the loans were provided exclusively at that place? (4) If Question 2(b) is answered in the affirmative: For the purpose of determining the place of performance for the non-performed contractual obligation in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012, is the decisive date: (a) the date on which the two debtors took out the loans (March 2007) or (b) the dates on which the loan debtor entitled to recourse made to the bank the payments from which he derives the recourse claim (June 2012 to June 2014)?’
5

Article 5 of Directive 2004/25, headed ‘Protection of minority shareholders, the mandatory bid and the equitable price’, provides in subparagraphs 1 to 4: ‘1. Where a natural or legal person, as a result of his/her own acquisition or the acquisition by persons acting in concert with him/her, holds securities of a company as referred to in Article 1(1) which, added to any existing holdings of those securities of his/hers and the holdings of those securities of persons acting in concert with him/her, directly or indirectly give him/her a specified percentage of voting rights in that company, giving him/her control of that company, Member States shall ensure that such a person is required to make a bid as a means of protecting the minority shareholders of that company. Such a bid shall be addressed at the earliest opportunity to all the holders of those securities for all their holdings at the equitable price as defined in paragraph 4. 2. Where control has been acquired following a voluntary bid made in accordance with this Directive to all the holders of securities for all their holdings, the obligation laid down in paragraph 1 to launch a bid shall no longer apply. 3. The percentage of voting rights which confers control for the purposes of paragraph 1 and the method of its calculation shall be determined by the rules of the Member State in which the company has its registered office. 4. The highest price paid for the same securities by the offeror, or by persons acting in concert with him/her, over a period, to be determined by Member States, of not less than six months and not more than 12 before the bid referred to in paragraph 1 shall be regarded as the equitable price. If, after the bid has been made public and before the offer closes for acceptance, the offeror or any person acting in concert with him/her purchases securities at a price higher than the offer price, the offeror shall increase his/her offer so that it is not less than the highest price paid for the securities so acquired. Provided that the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) are respected, Member States may authorise their supervisory authorities to adjust the price referred to in the first subparagraph in circumstances and in accordance with criteria that are clearly determined. To that end, they may draw up a list of circumstances in which the highest price may be adjusted either upwards or downwards, for example where the highest price was set by agreement between the purchaser and a seller, where the market prices of the securities in question have been manipulated, where market prices in general or certain market prices in particular have been affected by exceptional occurrences, or in order to enable a firm in difficulty to be rescued. They may also determine the criteria to be applied in such cases, for example the average market value over a particular period, the break-up value of the company or other objective valuation criteria generally used in financial analysis. Any decision by a supervisory authority to adjust the equitable price shall be substantiated and made public.’
7

Article 119b of the GTC provides: ‘1. The withholding tax provided for in Article 119a(2) shall not be levied on dividends distributed to a legal person who satisfies the conditions set out in paragraph (2) of the present article by a company or an organisation subject to corporation tax at the normal rate. 2. In order to benefit from the exemption provided for in paragraph 1, the legal person must demonstrate to the debtor or person responsible for the payment of that income that it is indeed the beneficiary of the dividends and that it satisfies the following conditions: (a) It shall have its effective centre of management in a Member State of the European [Union] and not be regarded, under the terms of a double taxation agreement concluded with a third State, as resident for tax purposes outside the [Union]; (b) It shall be in one of the forms included in a list established by decree of the Minister for Economic Affairs in accordance with the Annex to the [Parent-Subsidiary Directive]; (c) It shall have an interest directly and continuously for at least the previous two years, in at least 25% of the capital of the legal person which distributes the dividends, or make a commitment to continuously maintain that holding for at least two years and appoint, as in the case of turnover taxes, a representative responsible for the payment of withholding tax referred to in paragraph 1 in the event that that commitment is not respected; The level of the holding provided for in the above subparagraph shall be reduced to 20% for dividends distributed between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2006, to 15% for dividends distributed between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2008 and to 10% for dividends distributed since 1 January 2009; (d) It shall be subject, in the Member State where it has its effective centre of management, to the corporation tax of that State, without the possibility of an option or of being exempt. … 2a. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply to dividends distributed to permanent establishments of legal persons which satisfy the conditions set out in paragraph 2, where those permanent establishments are located in France or in another Member State of the European [Union]. 3. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply where the distributed dividends are received by a legal person controlled directly or indirectly by one or more residents of States that are not members of the [Union], unless that legal person provides proof that the principal purpose or one of the principal purposes of the chain of interests is not to take advantage of the provisions of paragraph 1.’ …’
9

Article 31 of Directive 2013/32, headed ‘Examination procedure’, which opens Chapter III, headed ‘Procedures at first instance’, provides as follows: ‘1. Member States shall process applications for asylum in an examination procedure in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II. 2. Member States shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded as soon as possible, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination. 3. Member States shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded within six months of the lodging of the application. … 8. Member States may provide that an examination procedure in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II be accelerated and/or conducted at the border or in transit zones in accordance with Article 43 if: (a) the applicant, in submitting his or her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant to the examination of whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive [2011/95]; or (b) the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of this Directive; or (c) the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or (d) it is likely that, in bad faith, the applicant has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his or her identity or nationality; or (e) the applicant has made clearly inconsistent and contradictory, clearly false or obviously improbable representations which contradict sufficiently verified country-of-origin information, thus making his or her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive [2011/95]; or (f) the applicant has introduced a subsequent application for international protection that is not inadmissible in accordance with Article 40(5); or (g) the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his or her removal; or (h) the applicant entered the territory of the Member State unlawfully or prolonged his/her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself or herself to the authorities or not made an application for international protection as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his or her entry; or (i) the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his or her fingerprints taken …; or (j) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law. …’
32

In those circumstances, the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of [the Eighth Directive] in conjunction with Article 17(2) and (3)(a) of [the Sixth Directive] be interpreted as precluding a practice of a national tax administration which considers that there is no objective evidence to confirm the declared intention of the taxable person to use the goods imported in connection with its economic activity in the case where, on the date of the actual importation, the contract for the performance of which the taxable person had purchased and imported the goods was suspended, with the serious risk that the subsequent supply/transaction for which the imported goods were intended would no longer be carried out? (2) Does proof of the subsequent movements of the imported goods, that is to say, establishing whether, and in what manner, the goods were actually intended for the taxable transactions of the taxable person, constitute an additional condition imposed with a view to refunding the VAT, in addition to those listed in Articles 3 and 4 of [the Eighth Directive] and prohibited by Article 6 of the directive, or does such proof constitute necessary information as regards the substantive condition for the refund relating to the use of the imported goods in connection with taxable transactions, which the tax authority may request under Article 6 of that directive? (3) Can Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of [the Eighth Directive] in conjunction with Article 17(2) and (3)(a) of [the Sixth Directive] be interpreted as meaning that the right to a refund of VAT may be denied in the case where the subsequent transaction planned, in connection with which the imported goods were intended to be used, is no longer carried out? In those circumstances, does the actual destination of the goods, that is to say, whether they were in fact used, in what way and in which territory, namely in that of the Member State in which the VAT was paid or outside that State, have any relevance?’
Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of 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, Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the 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, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1a of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicle, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excluded from coverage under compulsory insurance against civil liability with respect to the use of motor vehicles and, therefore, compensation by means of that insurance the personal injuries and property damage sustained by a pedestrian victim of a motor vehicle accident, on the sole ground that that pedestrian was the insurance policy-holder and the owner of the vehicle that caused those injuries and that damage.
7

The self-correction mechanism is governed by Paragraph 49 of the adózás rendjéről szóló 2003. évi XCII. törvény (Law No XCII of 2003 on the taxation scheme). Paragraph 49(1) and (3) is worded as follows: ‘(1) Taxpayers may, by submitting a return, correct the tax, whether already determined or pending determination, the taxable amount for the purposes of tax — with the exception of document duties and public charges — and any budgetary aid. If the taxpayer, before the commencement of a tax inspection, notices that he has not calculated the tax, the taxable amount or the budgetary aid in accordance with the law, or if his tax return contains errors in relation to the basis or amount of tax or budgetary aid as a consequence of calculation or clerical errors, he may amend his tax return by means of self-correction. A situation in which the taxpayer submits his return late and cannot justify that delay, or in which the tax authority rejects his application for an extension, will not be considered self-correction. Self-correction may not be carried out if the taxpayer has taken advantage, in accordance with the law, of the option possibilities recognised by the law and wishes to alter them by means of self-correction. The taxpayer may subsequently claim tax advantages or benefit from them by means of self-correction. … (3) By means of self-correction it will be possible to correct the taxable amount, the tax and the budgetary aid in accordance with the rules in force at the time the obligation arose, within the limitation period laid down by law for determining the tax and in relation to the tax period corresponding to the tax which has to be corrected. Self-correction covers determination of the taxable amount, of the tax identified, of the amount of budgetary aid and, if required by law, of the self-correction supplement; the tax return and simultaneous payment of the corrected taxable amount, of the corrected tax, of the budgetary aid and of the supplement; and the request for tax refund or for budgetary aid. The situation in which it is necessary to correct the value added tax as a consequence of the amendment to the decision of the customs authority determining the tax on imported goods will not be considered self-correction. If the customs authority subsequently amends its decision determining the tax on imported goods, the amendment must be regularised in the tax return for the month in which payment was made.’
3

Recitals 9, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 19 of Directive 2009/72 state: ‘(9) Without effective separation of networks from activities of generation and supply (effective unbundling), there is an inherent risk of discrimination not only in the operation of the network but also in the incentives for vertically integrated undertakings to invest adequately in their networks. … (11) Only the removal of the incentive for vertically integrated undertakings to discriminate against competitors as regards network access and investment can ensure effective unbundling. Ownership unbundling, which implies the appointment of the network owner as the system operator and its independence from any supply and production interests, is clearly an effective and stable way to solve the inherent conflict of interests and to ensure security of supply. … (12) Any system for unbundling should be effective in removing any conflict of interests between producers, suppliers and transmission system operators, in order to create incentives for the necessary investments and guarantee the access of new market entrants under a transparent and efficient regulatory regime and should not create an overly onerous regulatory regime for national regulatory authorities. … (16) The setting up of a system operator or a transmission operator that is independent from supply and generation interests should enable a vertically integrated undertaking to maintain its ownership of network assets whilst ensuring effective separation of interests, provided that such independent system operator or such independent transmission operator performs all the functions of a system operator and detailed regulation and extensive regulatory control mechanisms are put in place. (17) Where, on 3 September 2009, an undertaking owning a transmission system is part of a vertically integrated undertaking, Member States should therefore be given a choice between ownership unbundling and setting up a system operator or transmission operator which is independent from supply and generation interests. … (19) The full effectiveness of the independent system operator or independent transmission operator solutions should be ensured by way of specific additional rules. The rules on the independent transmission operator provide an appropriate regulatory framework to guarantee fair competition, sufficient investment, access for new market entrants and the integration of electricity markets. Effective unbundling through the independent transmission operator provisions should be based on a pillar of organisational measures and measures relating to the governance of transmission system operators and on a pillar of measures relating to investment, connecting new production capacities to the network and market integration through regional cooperation. The independence of the transmission operator should also, inter alia, be ensured through certain “cooling-off” periods during which no management or other relevant activity giving access to the same information as could have been obtained in a managerial position is exercised in the vertically integrated undertaking. …’
12

Article 11 of the TIR Convention is worded as follows: ‘1. Where a TIR operation has not been discharged, the competent authorities shall not have the right to claim payment of the sums mentioned in Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2, from the guaranteeing association unless, within a period of one year from the date of acceptance of the TIR Carnet by those authorities, they have notified the association in writing of the non-discharge. The same provision shall apply where the certificate of termination of the TIR operation was obtained in an improper or fraudulent manner, save that the period shall be two years. 2. The claim for payment of the sums referred to in Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be made to the guaranteeing association at the earliest three months after the date on which the association was informed that the operation had not been discharged or that the certificate of termination of the TIR operation had been obtained in an improper or fraudulent manner and at the latest not more than two years after that date. However, in cases which, during the abovementioned period of two years, become the subject of legal proceedings, any claim for payment shall be made within one year of the date on which the decision of the court becomes enforceable. 3. The guaranteeing association shall have a period of three months, from the date when a claim for payment is made upon it, in which to pay the amounts claimed. The sums paid shall be reimbursed to the association if, within the two years following the date on which the claim for payment was made, it has been established to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that no irregularity was committed in connection with the transport operation in question.’
5

Article 86 of those Rules of Procedure, entitled ‘Modification of the application’, is worded as follows: ‘1. Where a measure the annulment of which is sought is replaced or amended by another measure with the same subject-matter, the applicant may, before the oral part of the procedure is closed, or before the decision of the General Court to rule without an oral part of the procedure, modify the application to take account of that new factor. 2. The modification of the application must be made by a separate document within the time limit laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU within which the annulment of the measure justifying the modification of the application may be sought. 3. The statement of modification shall contain: (a) the modified form of order sought; (b) where appropriate, the modified pleas in law and arguments; (c) where appropriate, the evidence produced and offered in connection with the modification of the form of order sought. 4. The statement of modification must be accompanied by the measure justifying the modification of the application. If that measure is not produced, the Registrar shall prescribe a reasonable time limit within which the applicant is to produce it. If the applicant fails to produce the measure within the time limit prescribed, the General Court shall decide whether the non-compliance with that requirement renders the statement modifying the application inadmissible. 5. Without prejudice to the decision to be taken by the General Court on the admissibility of the statement modifying the application, the President shall prescribe a time limit within which the defendant may respond to the statement of modification. …’