ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
34

In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: (1) Is Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/18 to be interpreted as permitting a Member State not to apply the directive, following its accession to the … Union, if it has the benefit of a finance agreement concluded with the [EIB] which was signed before the accession and under which specific requirements imposed by the lending institution, such as those at issue in the present case, which are more restrictive than those laid down by the directive, are applied to public contracts to be awarded? (2) Is Directive 2004/18 to be interpreted as precluding a legislative measure under national law, such as [OUG] No 72/2007, which provides for the application of the [EIB Guide], by way of derogation from the legislative measure by which the directive was transposed into national law, namely, in the present case, [OUG] No 34/2006, on grounds such as those set out in the explanatory memorandum [relating to the former OUG], for the purpose of compliance with the finance agreement concluded prior to accession? (3) On a proper interpretation of Article 9(5) and Article 60(a) of Regulation No 1083/2006, may such a public contract, concluded in compliance with the [EIB Guide] and with national law, be regarded as consistent with EU law and eligible for European non-reimbursable financial support, granted retrospectively? (4) In the event that Question 3 is answered in the negative, if such a public contract was nonetheless considered to be consistent with EU law at the time the check was carried out to verify compliance with the qualification requirements for the Sectoral Operational Programme “Transport 2007-2013”, does such an alleged breach of EU public procurement law (determination of certain pre-selection criteria for the tenderers which are similar to those set out in the [EIB Guide] and more restrictive than those laid down in Directive 2004/18 …) constitute an “irregularity” within the meaning of Article 2(7) of Regulation No 1083/2006, giving rise to an obligation on the part of the Member State concerned to make a financial correction/percentage reduction pursuant to Article 98(2) of the regulation?’
4

Article 45 of Directive 2004/18, headed ‘Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer’, provides as follows: ‘1. Any candidate or tenderer who has been the subject of a conviction by final judgment of which the contracting authority is aware for one or more of the reasons listed below shall be excluded from participation in a public contract: … For the purposes of this paragraph, the contracting authorities shall, where appropriate, ask candidates or tenderers to supply the documents referred to in paragraph 3 and may, where they have doubts concerning the personal situation of such candidates or tenderers, also apply to the competent authorities to obtain any information they consider necessary on the personal situation of the candidates or tenderers concerned. Where the information concerns a candidate or tenderer established in a State other than that of the contracting authority, the contracting authority may seek the cooperation of the competent authorities. Having regard for the national laws of the Member State where the candidates or tenderers are established, such requests shall relate to legal and/or natural persons, including, if appropriate, company directors and any person having powers of representation, decision or control in respect of the candidate or tenderer. 2. Any economic operator may be excluded from participation in a contract where that economic operator: … (c) has been convicted by a judgment which has the force of res judicata in accordance with the legal provisions of the country of any offence concerning his professional conduct; (d) has been guilty of grave professional misconduct proved by any means which the contracting authorities can demonstrate; … (g) is guilty of serious misrepresentation in supplying the information required under this Section, or has not supplied such information. Member States shall specify, in accordance with their national law and having regard for Community law, the implementing conditions for this paragraph. 3. Contracting authorities shall accept the following as sufficient evidence that none of the cases specified in paragraphs 1 or 2(a), (b), (c), (e) or (f) applies to the economic operator: (a) as regards paragraphs 1 and 2(a), (b) and (c), the production of an extract from the “judicial record” or, failing that, of an equivalent document issued by a competent judicial or administrative authority in the country of origin or the country whence that person comes showing that these requirements have been met; …’
5

Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Categories, definitions and minimum ages’, provides: ‘1. The driving licence provided for in Article 1 shall authorise the driving of power-driven vehicles in the categories defined hereafter. It may be issued from the minimum age indicated for each category. A “power-driven vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle running on a road under its own power, other than a rail-borne vehicle. … 4. motor vehicles: – “motor vehicle” means any power-driven vehicle, which is normally used for carrying persons or goods by road or for drawing, on the road, vehicles used for the carriage of persons or goods. This term shall include trolleybuses, i.e. vehicles connected to an electric conductor and not rail-borne. It shall not include agricultural or forestry tractors, … (d) Category C1: motor vehicles other than those in category D1 or D, the maximum authorised mass of which exceeds 3500 kg, but does not exceed 7500 kg, and which are designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than eight passengers in addition to the driver; motor vehicles in this category may be combined with a trailer having a maximum authorised mass which does not exceed 750 kg; … (f) Category C: motor vehicles other than those in category D1 or D, whose maximum authorised mass is over 3500 kg and which are designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than eight passengers in addition to the driver; motor vehicles in this category may be combined with a trailer having a maximum authorised mass which does not exceed 750 kg; … (h) Category D1: motor vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than 16 passengers in addition to the driver and with a maximum length not exceeding 8 m; motor vehicles in this category may be combined with a trailer having a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 750 kg; … (j) Category D: motor vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of more than eight passengers in addition to the driver; motor vehicles which may be driven with a category D licence may be combined with a trailer having a maximum authorised mass which does not exceed 750 kg; …’
12

Article 22 of Directive 2008/50, entitled ‘Postponement of attainment deadlines and exemption from the obligation to apply certain limit values’, provides: ‘1. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide or benzene cannot be achieved by the deadlines specified in Annex XI, a Member State may postpone those deadlines by a maximum of five years for that particular zone or agglomeration, on condition that an air quality plan is established in accordance with Article 23 for the zone or agglomeration to which the postponement would apply; such air quality plan shall be supplemented by the information listed in Section B of Annex XV related to the pollutants concerned and shall demonstrate how conformity will be achieved with the limit values before the new deadline. 2. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for PM10 as specified in Annex XI cannot be achieved because of site-specific dispersion characteristics, adverse climatic conditions or transboundary contributions, a Member State shall be exempt from the obligation to apply those limit values until 11 June 2011 provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and that the Member State shows that all appropriate measures have been taken at national, regional and local level to meet the deadlines. 3. Where a Member State applies paragraphs 1 or 2, it shall ensure that the limit value for each pollutant is not exceeded by more than the maximum margin of tolerance specified in Annex XI for each of the pollutants concerned. …’
10

Article 12(6) and (7) of the texto refundido de la Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (consolidated text of the Law on the Workers’ Statute), approved by the Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1995 (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1995) of 24 March 1995 (BOE No 75 of 29 March 1995, p. 9654), in its version applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings (‘the Workers’ Statute’), provides: ‘6. In order for a worker to take partial retirement, … he shall agree with his employer to a reduction in working hours and remuneration of at least 25% and no more than 75%, … At the same time the employer shall conclude a “relief” contract, in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraph, in order to cover the working hours no longer covered as a result of the worker taking partial retirement. A “relief” contract may equally be concluded in order to replace workers taking partial retirement after reaching the age of 65. There may be an 85% reduction in working hours and remuneration where the “relief” contract is concluded for an indefinite duration on a full-time basis … The performance of that part-time employment contract and remuneration under the contract shall be compatible with the retirement pension granted to the worker by social security in respect of partial retirement. The employment relationship shall come to an end when the worker takes full retirement. 7. The “relief” contract shall be governed by the following rules: (a) It shall be entered into with an unemployed worker or a worker who already has a fixed-term contract with the employer. (b) Except in the case referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 6, the “relief” contract entered into following a partial retirement must be of indefinite duration or at least of a duration equal to the time remaining until the replaced worker reaches the age of 65. If, when he reaches that age, the partially-retired worker is still employed by the employer, the “relief” contract concluded for a fixed-term may be extended, by agreement of the parties, from year to year; in any case it shall terminate at the end of the period corresponding to the year during which the “relieved” worker takes full retirement. Where a worker takes partial retirement after reaching the age of 65, the “relief” contract that may be concluded by the employer in order to cover the working time no longer covered by that worker may be of indefinite duration or annual. In the latter case, the contract shall be extended automatically from year to year and terminate in the way described in the preceding subparagraph. … (d) The post of the “relief” worker may be the same as that of the worker replaced or a similar post, namely a post the tasks of which fall within the same occupational group or within an equivalent category. …’
6

Article 7 of the regulation, entitled ‘Suspension of concentrations’, provides in paragraphs 1 to 3: ‘1. A concentration with a Community dimension as defined in Article 1, or which is to be examined by the Commission pursuant to Article 4(5), shall not be implemented either before its notification or until it has been declared compatible with the common market pursuant to a decision under Articles 6(1)(b), 8(1) or 8(2), or on the basis of a presumption according to Article 10(6). 2. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the implementation of a public bid or of a series of transactions in securities including those convertible into other securities admitted to trading on a market such as a stock exchange, by which control within the meaning of Article 3 is acquired from various sellers, provided that: (a) the concentration is notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 4 without delay; and (b) the acquirer does not exercise the voting rights attached to the securities in question or does so only to maintain the full value of its investments based on a derogation granted by the Commission under paragraph 3. 3. The Commission may, on request, grant a derogation from the obligations imposed in paragraph 1 or 2. The request to grant a derogation must be reasoned. In deciding on the request, the Commission shall take into account inter alia the effects of the suspension on one or more undertakings concerned by the concentration or on a third party and the threat to competition posed by the concentration. Such a derogation may be made subject to conditions and obligations in order to ensure conditions of effective competition. A derogation may be applied for and granted at any time, be it before notification or after the transaction.’
25

In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Do organisms obtained by mutagenesis constitute [GMOs] within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/18, although they are exempt under Article 3 of and Annex I B to the directive from the obligations laid down for release and placing on the market of [GMOs]? In particular, may mutagenesis techniques, in particular new directed mutagenesis techniques implementing genetic engineering processes, be regarded as techniques listed in Annex I A, to which Article 2 refers? Consequently, must Articles 2 and 3 of and Annexes I A and I B to Directive [2001/18] be interpreted as meaning that they exempt from precautionary, impact-assessment and traceability measures all organisms and seeds obtained by mutagenesis, or only organisms obtained by conventional random mutagenesis methods by ionising radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemical agents existing before those measures were adopted? (2) Do varieties obtained by mutagenesis constitute genetically modified varieties within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive [2002/53] which would not be exempt from the obligations laid down in that directive? Or, on the contrary, is the scope of that directive the same as that under Articles 2 and 3 of and Annex I B to [Directive 2001/18], and does it also exempt varieties obtained by mutagenesis from the obligations laid down for the inclusion of genetically modified varieties in the common catalogue of agricultural plant species by [Directive 2002/53]? (3) Do Articles 2 and 3 of and Annex I B to Directive [2001/18] on the deliberate release into the environment of [GMOs] constitute, in so far as they exclude mutagenesis from the scope of the obligations laid down in the directive, a full harmonisation measure prohibiting Member States from subjecting organisms obtained by mutagenesis to all or some of the obligations laid down in the directive or to any other obligation, or do the Member States, when transposing those provisions, have a discretion to define the regime to be applied to organisms obtained by mutagenesis? (4) May the validity of Articles 2 and 3 of and Annexes I A and I B to Directive [2001/18] with regard to the precautionary principle guaranteed by Article 191(2) [TFEU], in that those provisions do not subject [GMOs] obtained by mutagenesis to precautionary, impact-assessment and traceability measures, be called into question, taking account of the development of genetic engineering processes, the appearance of new plant varieties obtained by means of those techniques and the current scientific uncertainty as to their impacts and the potential risks they represent for the environment and human and animal health?’
14

Article 10 of Law No 146 of 8 May 1998 (GURI No 110, ordinary supplement to GURI No 93) provides: ‘(1) The tax assessments based on the sector studies provided for in Article 62 sexies of Legislative Decree No 331 of 30 August 1993, amended and converted into Law No 427 of 29 October 1993 shall apply to taxpayers in accordance with the procedures laid down in this article when declared income or remuneration is less than the income or remuneration which may be determined on the basis of such studies. … (3 bis) In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the Tax Office shall, before sending the tax assessment notice, invite the taxpayer to appear under Article 5 of Legislative Decree No 218 of 19 June 1997. (3 ter) In the event of income inadequacy determined on the basis of the sector studies, the reasons justifying the income inadequacy declared to be inappropriate in relation to those resulting from the application of these studies may be certified. The reasons for inconsistencies between the declaration and the economic indicators identified by the abovementioned studies may also be certified. Such a certificate shall be issued, at the request of taxpayers, by the persons indicated in Article 3(3)(a) and (b) of the regulation established by Presidential Decree No 322 of 22 July 1998, who are authorised to submit the declarations electronically, by tax assistance employees in centres staffed by the persons referred to in Article 32(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Legislative Decree No 241 of 9 July 1997, and by the employees and officials of the professional associations authorised to provide the technical assistance provided for in Article 12(2) of Legislative Decree No 546 of

31 December 1992. … (5) For the purposes of [VAT], there shall be applied to the higher income or remuneration, determined on the basis of the said sector studies, taking into account the existence of non-taxable transactions or transactions subject to special arrangements, the average rate resulting from the ratio between the tax on taxable transactions and the turnover declared, net of tax on supplies of depreciable goods, and the turnover declared. … (7) A commission of experts appointed by the Minister, also taking into account the reports made by professional economic organisations and professional orders, shall be set up by decree of the Ministry of Finance. This commission, before the approval and publication of each sector study, shall deliver an opinion on the capacity of these studies to represent the actual facts to which they refer. No payment shall be made for consulting the members of the commission. …’
3

Article 32(1), (2) and (5) of that directive states: ‘1. When reference is made to the procedure laid down in this Article, the Committee [for Medicinal Products for Human Use] shall consider the matter concerned and shall issue a reasoned opinion within 60 days of the date on which the matter was referred to it. However, in cases submitted to the Committee in accordance with Articles 30 and 31, this period may be extended by the Committee for a further period of up to 90 days, taking into account the views of the applicants or the marketing authorisation holders concerned. In an emergency, and on a proposal from its Chairman, the Committee may agree to a shorter deadline. 2. In order to consider the matter, the Committee shall appoint one of its members to act as rapporteur. The Committee may also appoint individual experts to advise it on specific questions. When appointing experts, the Committee shall define their tasks and specify the time-limit for the completion of these tasks. … 5. Within 15 days after its adoption, the [European Medicines Agency (EMA)] shall forward the final opinion of the Committee to the Member States, to the Commission and to the applicant or the marketing authorisation holder, together with a report describing the assessment of the medicinal product and stating the reasons for its conclusions. In the event of an opinion in favour of granting or maintaining an authorisation to place the medicinal product concerned on the market, the following documents shall be annexed to the opinion: (a) a draft summary of the product characteristics, as referred to in Article 11; (b) any conditions affecting the authorisation within the meaning of paragraph 4(c); (c) details of any recommended conditions or restrictions with regard to the safe and effective use of the medicinal product; (d) the proposed text of the labelling and leaflet.’
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 —

Podilă and Others

(Joined Cases C‑133/17 and C‑134/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers at work — Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions — Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work — Employer’s obligations)

Social policy—Protection of the safety and health of workers—Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work—Scope—Calculation of pensions of workers in accordance with the classification of their activities in different risk groups—National legislation laying down strict deadlines and procedures which do not enable the national courts to review or establish that classification—Exclusion, equally in respect of Articles 114(3) TFEU, 151 TFEU and 153 TFEU

(Arts 114(3) TFEU, 151 TFEU and 153 TFEU; Council Directive 89/391, Arts 9(1) and (2) and 11(6))

(see paras 37, 38, 42-45, operative part)

Operative part

Article 114(3) and Articles 151 and 153 TFEU and Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work must be interpreted as not being applicable to national laws, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down strict deadlines and procedures not allowing the national courts to review or establish the classification of the activities of workers in various risk groups, on the basis of which retirement pensions are calculated for those workers.

( 1 ) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
The concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as referring not only to the proceedings which gave rise to the decision on appeal, where that decision, after a fresh examination of the case on the merits, finally determined the guilt of the person concerned, but also to subsequent proceedings, such as those that led to the judgment handing down the cumulative sentence at issue in the main proceedings, at the end of which the decision that finally amended the level of the initial sentence was handed down, inasmuch as the authority which adopted the latter decision enjoyed a certain discretion in that regard.

Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned did not appear in person in the relevant proceeding or, as the case may be, in the relevant proceedings for the application of Article 4a(1) of that Framework Decision, as amended, and where neither the information contained in the standard form for a European arrest warrant annexed to that Framework Decision nor the information obtained pursuant to Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision, as amended, provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of one of the situations referred to in Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant.

However, that Framework Decision, as amended, does not prevent that authority from taking account of all the circumstances characterising the case brought before it in order to ensure that the rights of the defence of the person concerned are respected during the relevant proceeding or proceedings.

(see paras 109, 110, operative part 2)