ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The principle of mutual recognition, which underpins Framework Decision 2005/214 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, means that, in accordance with Article 6 of Framework Decision 2005/214, the Member States are, as a rule, obliged to recognise a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty which has been transmitted in accordance with Article 4 of the Framework Decision without any further formality being required, and to take without delay all the measures necessary for its enforcement. Accordingly, the grounds for refusal to recognise or enforce such a decision must be interpreted restrictively. Such an interpretation is all the more appropriate since mutual confidence between Member States, which is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the Union, is coupled with appropriate safeguards.

The term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, set out in Article 1(a)(iii) of Framework Decision 2005/214 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is an autonomous concept of EU law and must be interpreted as covering any court or tribunal which applies a procedure that satisfies the essential characteristics of criminal procedure. The Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in den Ländern (Austria) fulfils those criteria and must for that reason be regarded as coming within the scope of that term.

For the purposes of interpreting the term ‘court’ contained in Article 1(a)(iii) of Framework Decision 2005/214, it is appropriate to rely on the criteria identified by the Court of Justice for determining whether a referring body is a ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU. To that end, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent.

As regards the words ‘having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, in order to ensure that the Framework Decision is effective, it is appropriate to rely on an interpretation in which the classification of offences by the Member States is not conclusive. To that end, the court having jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision must apply a procedure which satisfies the essential characteristics of criminal procedure, without, however, it being necessary for that court to have jurisdiction in criminal matters alone. Such criminal procedure is subject to compliance with the procedural safeguards appropriate to criminal matters, which include, amongst others, in particular, the principle nulla poena sine lege, the principle that culpability should arise only where there is capacity or criminal responsibility, and the principle that the penalty must be in proportion to the degree of responsibility and to the facts.

(see paras 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, operative part 1)
Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts does not allow the contracting authority to negotiate with tenderers tenders that do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract.

Even though the contracting authority has the power to negotiate in the context of a negotiated procedure, it is still bound to see to it that those requirements of the contract that it has made mandatory are complied with. Were that not the case, the principle that contracting authorities are to act transparently would be breached and the aim of precluding any risk of favouritism or arbitrariness on the part of the contracting authority could not be attained.

Moreover, allowing a tender that does not comply with the mandatory requirements to be admissible with a view to negotiations would entail the fixing of mandatory conditions in the call for tenders being deprived of useful effect and would not allow the contracting authority to negotiate with the tenderers on a basis, made up of those conditions, common to those tenderers and would not, therefore, allow it to treat them equally.

(see paras 36-39, operative part)
Case C‑202/12

Innoweb BV

v

Wegener ICT Media BV andWegener Mediaventions BV

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage)

‛Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Article 7(1) and (5) — Sui generis right of the database maker — Concept of ‘re-utilisation’ — Substantial part of the contents of the database — Dedicated meta search engine’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 19 December 2013

Approximation of laws — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9 — Right for the maker of a database to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or of a substantial part of the contents of that database (sui generis right) — Concept of re-utilisation (European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 7(2)(b)) Approximation of laws — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9 — Aim (European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9) Approximation of laws — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9 — Right for the maker of a database to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or of a substantial part of the contents of that database (sui generis right) — Concept of re-utilisation — Placing on the Internet, by its operator, of a dedicated meta search engine — Included — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 7(1) and (2)(b))
Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as applying to the determination of the customs value of goods imported on the basis of a contract which, although described as a contract of sale, in fact proves to be a working or processing contract. For the purposes of that determination, it is immaterial whether the working or processing operations satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 24 of that regulation, so that the goods concerned may be regarded as originating in the country where those operations took place.

Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, when the customs value is determined, account must be taken of the value of the export refund which a product has benefited from and which was obtained by putting into effect a practice involving the application of provisions of EU law with the aim of wrongfully securing an advantage.

An importer who has artificially placed himself in a situation making him eligible for export refunds is obliged to pay the duties on the products concerned, without prejudice, where appropriate, to administrative, civil or criminal penalties provided for by national law.

(see paras 68, 70, operative part 2)
Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the provision on a website of clickable links to works freely available on another website does not constitute an ‘act of communication to the public’, as referred to in that provision.

In this connection, the concept of communication to the public includes two cumulative criteria, namely, an ‘act of communication’ of a work and the communication of that work to a ‘public’.

The provision, on a website, of clickable links to protected works published without any access restrictions on another site, affords users of the first site direct access to those works and must be considered to be ‘making available’ and, therefore, an ‘act of communication’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29. Such an act of communication is aimed at all potential users of the website, that is to say, an indeterminate and fairly large number of recipients.

None the less, in order to be covered by the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, a communication concerning the same works as those covered by the initial communication and made, as in the case of the initial communication, on the Internet, and therefore by the same technical means, must also be directed at a new public, that is to say, at a public that was not taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication to the public. Making available the works concerned by means of a clickable link does not lead to the works in question being communicated to a new public.

In those circumstances, where all the users of another site to whom the works at issue have been communicated by means of a clickable link could access those works directly on the site on which they were initially communicated, without the involvement of the manager of that other site, the users of the site managed by the latter must be deemed to be potential recipients of the initial communication and, therefore, as being part of the public taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication.

Therefore, since there is no new public, the authorisation of the copyright holders is not required for such a communication to the public.

(see paras 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, operative part 1)
In order to be considered an establishment to which the supplies of goods or services by a taxable person are connected, an establishment must possess a sufficient degree of permanence and a structure adequate, in terms of human and technical resources, to carry out the transactions under consideration on an independent basis.

Under the second subparagraph of Article 171(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2007/75, the taxable persons referred to in Article 1 of the Eighth Directive 79/1072 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes are also, for the purposes of applying that directive, to be regarded as not established in the Member State concerned where they have only carried out in that Member State supplies of goods to a person designated in accordance with Article 195 of Directive 2006/112 as liable for payment of VAT. Article 195 particularly applies to supplies of electricity to taxable dealers identified for VAT purposes in the Member State where the tax is payable and to whom the goods are supplied in the circumstances specified in Article 38 of Directive 2006/112.

The identification of a company through the intermediary of a tax representative cannot validly be treated by the national legal order as demonstrating that such a company has in fact carried out supplies of goods or services in that Member State within the meaning of Article 1 of the Eighth Directive. It is patent from the wording of that article and from Article 171 of Directive 2006/112 that, if the right to a refund under the Eighth Directive is to be excluded, there must be a finding not only that there is a mere capacity to carry out taxable transactions in the State where the refund application is submitted, but that such transactions have actually been carried out.

(see paras 46, 52, 53)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Commission v Italy

(Case C‑411/12)

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Preferential electricity tariff — Decision 2011/746/EU — Aid incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Failure to implement within the prescribed period’

1. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Application of national law — Conditions — Establishment of a procedure to ensure the immediate and effective implementation of the Commission’s decision (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288, fourth para. TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3); Commission Decision 2011/746, Art. 4(1)) (see paras 25-31, 35)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with the obligation to recover aid granted unlawfully — Defences — Absolute impossibility of implementation — Criteria for assessment — Difficulties in implementing — Obligation of the Member State to undertake real steps in relation to the undertakings at issue and to propose to the Commission alternative solutions to overcome such difficulties — Obligation on the part of the Commission and the Member State, where difficulties arise regarding implementation, to collaborate in finding a solution which complies with the Treaty — Failure to adopt within the time limits prescribed the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful — Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 4(3) TEU; Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288, fourth para. TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3); Commission Decision 2011/746) (see paras 36-41, 43 and operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) — Obligation to recover without delay the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to notify the Commission of the measures taken.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover from Portovesme Srl and Eurallumina SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 2 of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA, the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Commission v Cyprus

(Case C-412/12)

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Operation in the absence of a conditioning plan for the site — Obligation to close down the site’

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 12)

2. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — National system pleaded as justification — Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 15)

3. Environment — Waste — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31 — No closing down of non-conform sites — Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 14) (see para. 17)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Continued operation of the landfill sites of Nicosia and Limassol in the absence of conditioning plans for the sites.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to close down all the landfill sites for the uncontrolled disposal of waste (XADA) which are operated on its territory or in failing to comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Commission v Cyprus

(Case C-412/12)

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Operation in the absence of a conditioning plan for the site — Obligation to close down the site’

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 12)

2. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — National system pleaded as justification — Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 15)

3. Environment — Waste — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31 — No closing down of non-conform sites — Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 14) (see para. 17)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Continued operation of the landfill sites of Nicosia and Limassol in the absence of conditioning plans for the sites.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to close down all the landfill sites for the uncontrolled disposal of waste (XADA) which are operated on its territory or in failing to comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;
Case C‑222/12

A. Karuse AS

v

Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus)

‛Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Obligation to use a tachograph — Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance — Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 13 March 2014

Transport — Road transport — Social provisions — Exceptions — Obligation to install and use a tachograph — Vehicles used in connection with road maintenance — Concept — Vehicles transporting material from the loading site to the road maintenance works site — Included — Conditions — Assessment by the national court

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 561/2006, Art. 13(1)(h))

The concept of ‘vehicles used in connection with road maintenance’, in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, which vehicles can be exempted from the use of a tachograph, must be interpreted as coveringvehicles transporting material to a road maintenance works site, provided that the transport is wholly and exclusively connected with those works and constitutes an ancillary activity to them. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case, taking account of all the relevant factors in the main proceedings.

(see para. 48, operative part)
Council Directive 2004/83 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refuges or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the principle of effectiveness and the right to good administration do not preclude a national procedural rule under which an application for subsidiary protection may be considered only after an application for refugee status has been refused, provided that, first, it is possible to submit the application for refugee status and the application for subsidiary protection at the same time and, second, the national procedural rule does not give rise to a situation in which the application for subsidiary protection is considered only after an unreasonable length of time, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

First, subsidiary protection is complementary and additional to the protection of refugees enshrined in the Geneva Convention.

Second, given that a person seeking international protection is not necessarily in a position to ascertain the kind of protection applicable to their application and that refugee status offers greater protection than that conferred by subsidiary protection, an application for subsidiary protection should not, in principle, be considered before the competent authority has reached the conclusion that the person seeking international protection does not qualify for refugee status.

Moreover, such a rule must ensure that persons seeking subsidiary protection are actually in a position to avail themselves of the rights conferred on them by the directive.

(see paras 32, 34-36, 42, 57, operative part)
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Companies — Directive 2003/71 — Obligation to publish a prospectus prior to any offer of securities to the public — Scope — Enforced sale of securities — Not included — No discriminatory treatment of investor)

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/71, Arts 2(1)(d) and 3(1))

Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/71 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/11, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to publish a prospectus prior to any offer of securities to the public is not applicable to an enforced sale of securities.

First, there is no mention of enforced sales of securities in that directive.

Secondly, the protection of investors and the proper functioning and development of markets form the fundamental core of the objectives pursued by that directive. The nature of the transactions that underlie the decision to carry out a sale of securities in the context of enforcement proceedings is significantly different from the nature of those referred to in Directive 2003/71, particularly because enforced sales are not intended to participate in economic activity on the securities market, but rather are intended only to satisfy the rights of the attaching creditor.

It follows that a sale of securities in the context of enforcement proceedings does not form part of the objectives of that directive and, accordingly, does not fall within its scope.

Lastly, since the situation of investors who purchase securities in an enforced sale is not comparable to that of investors who acquire such securities in a normal offer to the public, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(d) of Directive 2003/71, there cannot be any discriminatory treatment of one set of investors in comparison with the other.

(see paras 29, 33, 34, 36, 45, 49, 50, operative part)
Without prejudice to the Commission’s obligation to discharge the burden of proof upon it in proceedings under Article 258 TFEU, there is nothing precluding the Commission from acting on a difference of interpretation and bringing proceedings before the Court, alleging a failure by the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations, putting forward the numerous sets of circumstances which, in its view, are contrary to EU law, even though it does not identify each and every one of them.

The interpretation given by the Member State concerned to a provision of EU law which differs from the one endorsed by the Commission gives rise to a situation in the territory of that Member State where there is an administrative practice whose existence is undisputed even though it is not generalised. Accordingly, the fact that the Commission has given only a few examples of that practice in support of its argument does not mean its action lacks the necessary detail to enable an assessment to be made of the subject-matter of the action.

If, in the operative part of the application, the Commission refers to examples of situations which, in its view, demonstrate the Member State’s failure to fulfil its obligations, even though those examples were not in the operative part of the reasoned opinion issued to it, this cannot be regarded as expanding the subject-matter of the action, which remains an application for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations.

(see paras 25-27)