ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
14

Section VI of Chapter VI of the Dublin III Regulation, dealing with transfers of applicants to the Member State responsible, contains Article 29 of that regulation, headed ‘Modalities and time limits’, which provides: ‘1. The transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or (d) from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within six months of acceptance of the request by another Member State to take charge or to take back the person concerned or of the final decision on an appeal or review where there is a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 27(3). If transfers to the Member State responsible are carried out by supervised departure or under escort, Member States shall ensure that they are carried out in a humane manner and with full respect for fundamental rights and human dignity. … 2. Where the transfer does not take place within the six months’ time limit, the Member State responsible shall be relieved of its obligations to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility shall then be transferred to the requesting Member State. This time limit may be extended up to a maximum of one year if the transfer could not be carried out due to imprisonment of the person concerned or up to a maximum of 18 months if the person concerned absconds. … 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States, in particular in the event of postponed or delayed transfers, transfers following acceptance by default, transfers of minors or dependent persons, and supervised transfers. …’
59

In addition, it is common ground that the Court had held, in the judgment of 29 October 2009, Commission v Italy (C‑249/08, not published, EU:C:2009:672), that during a period between 1993 and 2005 the Italian Republic had failed, in essence, to monitor, inspect and supervise, in a satisfactory manner, fishing activities within its territory and within the waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, in particular with regard to compliance with the provisions governing the retention on board and use of driftnets, and by not ensuring in a satisfactory manner that appropriate measures were taken against those responsible for infringements of the EU law on the retention on board and use of driftnets, in particular by the imposition of dissuasive penalties against those persons. Subsequently, in order to ascertain whether the Italian Republic had complied with that judgment, the catches for 2010 and 2011 were the subject of additional inspections carried out by the Commission. Those inspections showed that the infringements upheld in that judgment persisted in the period after it was pronounced. On the basis of those inspections, in 2011 the Commission initiated a new infringement procedure pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU which led, inter alia, to a letter of formal notice being sent to the Italian Republic in September 2011. It is also clear from the case-file submitted to the Court that it was in order to verify the assurances given by that Member State, in the context of that procedure, as to the improvements made regarding the supervision and monitoring of compliance with the legislation prohibiting the use and retention on board of driftnets that the Commission carried out new, on-the-spot inspection missions during 2012 and 2013. The latter did not, however, disclose any new case of the infringement of that legislation and the procedure was closed in 2014.
5

Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33; ‘the 2003 Act of Accession’) is entitled ‘List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Hungary’; Chapter 3 of that annex, entitled ‘Free movement of capital’, provides in paragraph 2: ‘Notwithstanding the obligations under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, Hungary may maintain in force for seven years from the date of accession the prohibitions laid down in its legislation existing at the time of signature of this Act on the acquisition of agricultural land by natural persons who are non-residents or non-nationals of Hungary and by legal persons. In no instance may nationals of the Member States or legal persons formed in accordance with the laws of another Member State be treated less favourably in respect of the acquisition of agricultural land than at the date of signature of the Accession Treaty. … Nationals of another Member State who want to establish themselves as self-employed farmers and who have been legally resident and active in farming in Hungary at least for three years continuously, shall not be subject to the provisions of the preceding subparagraph or to any rules and procedures other than those to which nationals of Hungary are subject. … If there is sufficient evidence that, upon expiry of the transitional period, there will be serious disturbances or a threat of serious disturbances on the agricultural land market of Hungary, the Commission, at the request of Hungary, shall decide upon the extension of the transitional period for up to a maximum of three years.’
49

Indeed, after the competent authority states, on the form that it is required to complete, that it has ‘examined [the] visa application’ or ‘examined [the] visa’, as applicable, it must indicate the reason or reasons for the refusal, revocation or annulment of the visa, from among the eleven reasons shown on the form, namely that: the applicant presented a false travel document; justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided; the applicant did not provide proof of sufficient means of subsistence for the duration of the intended stay; the applicant has already stayed for 90 days during the current 180-day period on the territory of the Member States on the basis of a uniform visa or a visa with limited territorial validity; an alert has been issued against the applicant in the Schengen Information System (SIS) for the purpose of refusing entry; one or more Member State(s) consider the applicant to be a threat to public policy, internal security or public health, or to the international relations of one or more of the Member States; the applicant has not provided proof of holding an adequate and valid travel medical insurance; the information submitted by the applicant regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay is not reliable; the applicant’s intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa could not be ascertained; the applicant has not provided sufficient proof that he or she was not in a position to apply for a visa in advance, justifying application for a visa at the border; or that revocation of the visa was requested by the visa holder.
27

Article 26 of that regulation, entitled ‘Country of origin or place of provenance’, states: ‘… 2. Indication of the country of origin or place of provenance shall be mandatory: (a) where failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer as to the true country of origin or place of provenance of the food, in particular if the information accompanying the food or the label as a whole would otherwise imply that the food has a different country of origin or place of provenance; (b) for meat falling within the Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) codes listed in Annex XI. The application of this point shall be subject to the adoption of implementing acts referred to in paragraph 8. 3. Where the country of origin or the place of provenance of a food is given and where it is not the same as that of its primary ingredient: (a) the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient in question shall also be given; or (b) the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient shall be indicated as being different to that of the food. The application of this paragraph shall be subject to the adoption of the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 8. … 5. By 13 December 2014, the Commission shall submit reports to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for the following foods: (a) types of meat other than beef and those referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2; (b) milk; (c) milk used as an ingredient in dairy products; (d) unprocessed foods; (e) single ingredient products; (f) ingredients that represent more than 50% of a food. 6. By 13 December 2013, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat used as an ingredient. 7. The reports referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 shall take into account the need for the consumer to be informed, the feasibility of providing the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance and an analysis of the costs and benefits of the introduction of such measures, including the legal impact on the internal market and the impact on international trade. The Commission may accompany those reports with proposals to modify the relevant Union provisions. 8. By 13 December 2013, following impact assessments, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts concerning the application of point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article and the application of paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2). …’
25

Taking the view that there are reasonable doubts as to the answers to the questions referred by the rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant), the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, when such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment enterprise established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis? (2) Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands on the ground that it has not proved satisfactorily that its shareholders or participants satisfy the conditions laid down in Netherlands legislation? (3) Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, on the ground that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis at the latest in the eighth month following the end of the financial year, even if, in the country in which that investment fund is established, under the legislation there applicable, the proceeds of its investments, to the extent to which they are not distributed, (a) are deemed to have been distributed, and/or (b) are taken into account in the tax levied in that country on the shareholders or participants as though those profits had been distributed, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment enterprise established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?’
7

Article 14 of Directive 2014/41 is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that legal remedies equivalent to those available in a similar domestic case are applicable to the investigative measures indicated in the EIO. 2. The substantive reasons for issuing the EIO may be challenged only in an action brought in the issuing State, without prejudice to the guarantees of fundamental rights in the executing State. 3. Where it would not undermine the need to ensure confidentiality of an investigation under Article 19(1), the issuing authority and the executing authority shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that information is provided about the possibilities under national law for seeking the legal remedies when these become applicable and in due time to ensure that they can be exercised effectively. 4. Member States shall ensure that the time limits for seeking a legal remedy shall be the same as those that are provided for in similar domestic cases and are applied in a way that guarantees the possibility of the effective exercise of these legal remedies for the parties concerned. 5. The issuing authority and the executing authority shall inform each other about the legal remedies sought against the issuing, the recognition or the execution of an EIO. 6. A legal challenge shall not suspend the execution of the investigative measure, unless it is provided in similar domestic cases. 7. The issuing State shall take into account a successful challenge against the recognition or execution of an EIO in accordance with its own national law. Without prejudice to national procedural rules Member States shall ensure that in criminal proceedings in the issuing State the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected when assessing evidence obtained through the EIO.’
1.

Officials — Pensions — Retirement pensions — Early grant of pension without any reduction — Conditions for granting — Interests of the service –Criteria set out by the general implementing provisions adopted by the administration — Criterion relating to the duration of the applicant’s occupational activity — Taking into account the career in its entirety, both external to the EU institutions and within those institutions — Lawfulness (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Art. 9(2)) (see paras 41, 51)
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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 47)
EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Figurative mark Steirisches Kürbiskernöl

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and (2), and 51(1)(a))

(see paras 39-43, 54, 55)
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 – Mellifera v Commission

(Case C‑784/18 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Aarhus Convention – Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) – Internal review of administrative acts – Limitation to measures of individual application – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 – Extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ – Application for internal review – Measure of general application – Dismissal)

Acts of the institutions – Implementing Regulation extending the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ – Measure of general scope – No administrative act capable of being the subject of a request for internal review under Regulation No 1367/2006

(Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(3); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Arts 1(1), 2(1)(g) and 10, and No 1107/2009, Arts 13(2), 17, first para., and 20; Commission Regulation 2016/1056)

(see paras 63-67, 70, 72, 73, 80, 81, 84-86, 88, 89)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bayer Agriculture BVBA and by the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1))

(see paras 36, 37, 42)
11

Article 11 of Regulation No 2201/2003, entitled ‘Return of the child’, provides: ‘1. Where a person, institution or other body having rights of custody applies to the competent authorities in a Member State to deliver a judgment on the basis of the [1980 Hague Convention], in order to obtain the return of a child that has been wrongfully removed or retained in a Member State other than the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, paragraphs 2 to 8 shall apply. ... 3. A court to which an application for return of a child is made as mentioned in paragraph 1 shall act expeditiously in proceedings on the application, using the most expeditious procedures available in national law. Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, the court shall, except where exceptional circumstances make this impossible, issue its judgment no later than six weeks after the application is lodged. ... 6. If a court has issued an order on non-return pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, the court must immediately either directly or through its central authority, transmit a copy of the court order on non-return and of the relevant documents, in particular a transcript of the hearings before the court, to the court with jurisdiction or central authority in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, as determined by national law. The court shall receive all the mentioned documents within one month of the date of the non-return order. 7. Unless the courts in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention have already been seised by one of the parties, the court or central authority that receives the information mentioned in paragraph 6 must notify it to the parties and invite them to make submissions to the court, in accordance with national law, within three months of the date of notification so that the court can examine the question of custody of the child. Without prejudice to the rules on jurisdiction contained in this Regulation, the court shall close the case if no submissions have been received by the court within the time limit. 8. Notwithstanding a judgment of non-return pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, any subsequent judgment which requires the return of the child issued by a court having jurisdiction under this Regulation shall be enforceable ... in order to secure the return of the child.’
27

First, the fact that the transferee of the immovable property at issue in the main proceedings does not have the same rights as an owner –— particularly in so far as he is not authorised to replace the vines with another crop but rather must continue to use them in accordance with the terms of the transfer contract––– does not preclude that transfer contract from falling within the scope of the exempt transactions referred to in Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive. Indeed, as follows from the case-law cited in paragraph 18 of this judgment, those transactions confer on the tenant or transferee a right to occupy the immovable property in question as if he were the owner, in particular by excluding any other person from the enjoyment of such a right. They do not pass all of the rights of the owner of that property on to the tenant.
6

Under the heading ‘Registration and approval of establishments’, Article 4 of Regulation No 853/2004 provides: ‘1. Food business operators shall place products of animal origin manufactured in the Community on the market only if they have been prepared and handled exclusively in establishments: (a) that meet the relevant requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, those of Annexes II and III of this Regulation and other relevant requirements of food law; and (b) that the competent authority has registered or, where required in accordance with paragraph 2, approved. 2. Without prejudice to Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, establishments handling those products of animal origin for which Annex III to this Regulation lays down requirements shall not operate unless the competent authority has approved them in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, with the exception of establishments carrying out only: … (b) transport operations; … 3. An establishment subject to approval in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not operate unless the competent authority has, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption: (a) granted the establishment approval to operate following an on-site visit; or … 4. Food business operators shall cooperate with the competent authorities in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 854/2004. In particular, food business operators shall ensure that an establishment ceases to operate if the competent authority withdraws its approval or, in the case of conditional approval, fails to prolong it or to grant full approval. …’