ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Articles 4 and 20(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty confer inspection powers on the Commission which are designed to enable it to perform its task of protecting the common market from distortions of competition and to penalise any infringements of the competition rules on that market.

Thus, so far as concerns, specifically, the Commission’s inspection decisions, it is apparent from Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 that those inspection decisions must indicate, inter alia, the subject and the objective of the inspection. That obligation to state specific reasons constitutes a fundamental requirement not only to show that the intervention envisaged within the undertakings concerned was proportional, but also to put those undertakings in a position to understand the scope of their duty to cooperate, while at the same time preserving their rights of the defence.

The Commission is not required to communicate to the addressee of a decision ordering an investigation all the information at its disposal concerning the presumed infringements, or to make a precise legal analysis of those infringements, providing it clearly indicates the presumed facts which it intends to investigate.

Although, admittedly, the Commission is obliged to indicate as precisely as possible the evidence sought and the matters to which the investigation must relate, it is, on the other hand, not essential in a decision ordering an inspection to define precisely the relevant market, to set out the exact legal nature of the presumed infringements or to indicate the period during which those infringements were committed, provided that that inspection decision contains the essential elements set out above.

Having regard to the fact that inspections take place at the beginning of an investigation, the Commission still lacks precise information to make a specific legal assessment and must first verify the accuracy of its suspicions and the scope of the incidents which have taken place, the aim of the inspection being specifically to gather evidence relating to a suspected infringement.

(see paras 33-37)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 19)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see. paras 20-22)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.
National legislation laying down a procedure for the transfer of a company’s shares not open to every interested supplier cannot be regarded as equivalent to a procedure for the selection of suppliers of groundhandling services within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 96/67 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports. A procedure for the transfer of shares excludes all suppliers which are not at the same time investors interested in acquiring the shares of a pre-existing company which, after its acquisition, retained the authorisation to provide groundhandling services which had been granted to it, with the result that it was not possible for a supplier of groundhandling services to obtain the authorisation without, at the same time, acquiring the shares.

In addition, such a procedure is not covered by Article 18 of Directive 96/67. In this regard, it should be noted that, first, where an undertaking has obtained a licence to supply groundhandling services upon acquiring the shares of the company acquired, that does not allow the conclusion to be drawn that the future conduct of such an undertaking will remain unchanged after it has obtained the licence and, in particular, that that undertaking will preserve all existing employment posts in the company acquired. Second, it is established that the obligation imposed on the undertakings to take over the staff of the previous supplier puts potential new competitors at a disadvantage in relation to established undertakings and jeopardises the opening-up of the groundhandling markets, thereby undermining the effectiveness of Directive 96/67.

(see paras 47-51, 54, 55)
5.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment — Earlier mark which plays a distinctive independent role within the mark applied for (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60-62)
The term ‘standard tanks’, referred to in the first indent of Article 24(2) of Directive 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, must be interpreted as not excluding tanks fixed permanently to commercial motor vehicles intended for the direct supply of fuel to those vehicles when the tanks have been fitted by a person other than the manufacturer, in so far as the tanks enable fuel to be used directly, both for the purpose of propulsion of the vehicles and, where appropriate, for the operation, during transport, of refrigeration systems and other systems.

The obligation to declare the quantity of fuel contained in the vehicle’s tanks whenever an internal border is crossed and the need subsequently, in order to avoid double taxation, to seek refund of the excise duty in the Member State where the fuel was purchased would significantly hinder road transport between Member States and therefore constitute a barrier to trade within the internal market. Article 24 of Directive 2003/96 is intended to counteract that barrier and ensure free movement, whilst protecting the Member States’ legitimate fiscal interests. In order to safeguard that aim, it is not necessary to ascertain whether the fuel tank has been permanently fixed to the vehicle concerned by the manufacturer or by a third party.

Furthermore, the clarification relating to gas tanks in the second sentence of the first indent of Article 24(2) of Directive 2003/96 reflects the legislature’s intention to define the concept of ‘normal tanks’ broadly in order that users of vehicles equipped with gas tanks are not unfairly excluded from entitlement to the exemption laid down in Article 24.

(see paras 28, 29, 31, 35, operative part)
1.

In not laying down an obligation to inform the competent Polish authorities of the locations at which genetically modified organism crops are being grown pursuant to Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and in not establishing a register of those locations and in not making public the information relating to them, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of that directive;
Case C‑525/13

Vlaams Gewest

v

Heidi Van Den Broeck

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Area aid application — Article 33 — Penalties — Irregularities committed intentionally’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 2 October 2014

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Aid linked to areas used for arable crops and set-aside of land — Intentional irregularities committed in the aid application — Penalty — Refusal of all of the aid

(Commission Regulation No 2419/2001, Art. 33)

The first paragraph of Article 33 of Regulation No 2419/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Regulation No 3508/92, as amended by Regulation No 118/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer is to be refused all of the aid to which he would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity was eligible.

(see para. 34, operative part)

Case C‑525/13

Vlaams Gewest

v

Heidi Van Den Broeck

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Area aid application — Article 33 — Penalties — Irregularities committed intentionally’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 2 October 2014

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Aid linked to areas used for arable crops and set-aside of land — Intentional irregularities committed in the aid application — Penalty — Refusal of all of the aid

(Commission Regulation No 2419/2001, Art. 33)

The first paragraph of Article 33 of Regulation No 2419/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Regulation No 3508/92, as amended by Regulation No 118/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer is to be refused all of the aid to which he would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity was eligible.

(see para. 34, operative part)
The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and in particular Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority is not precluded from failing to hear a third-country national specifically on the subject of a return decision where, after that authority has determined that the third-country national is staying illegally in the national territory on the conclusion of a procedure which fully respected that person’s right to be heard, it is contemplating the adoption of such a decision in respect of that person, whether or not that return decision is the result of refusal of a residence permit.

Given that a return decision is closely linked, under Directive 2008/115, to the determination that a stay is illegal, the right to be heard cannot be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent national authority is contemplating the simultaneous adoption of a decision determining a stay to be illegal and a return decision, that authority should necessarily hear the person concerned so as to permit that person to present his/her point of view specifically on the return decision, since that person had the opportunity effectively to present his/her point of view on the question of whether the stay was illegal and whether there were grounds which could, under national law, entitle that authority to refrain from adopting a return decision.

None the less, the obligation to adopt, with respect to third country nationals who are staying illegally in their territory, a return decision, laid down by Article 6(1) of that directive, within a fair and transparent procedure, entails that Member States must, within the context of their procedural autonomy, first, explicitly make provision in their national law for the obligation to leave the national territory in cases of illegal stay and, second, ensure that the person concerned is properly heard within the procedure relating to his residence application or, as the case may be, on the legality of his stay. In that regard, the right to be heard cannot be used in order to re-open indefinitely the administrative procedure, for the reason that the balance between the fundamental right of the person concerned to be heard before the adoption of a decision adversely affecting that person and the obligation of the Member States to combat illegal immigration must be maintained.

(see paras 60-62, 71, 82, operative part)
The provisions of Regulation No 612/2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products and of Regulation No 376/2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products and Regulation No 382/2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector must be interpreted as precluding, as a rule, the payment of an export refund and the release of the security lodged in that connection when the exporter concerned did not have a valid export licence at the date the export declaration was accepted, even though the actual export of the goods concerned took place during the period of validity of the export licence issued to it.

The provisions of Regulation No 612/2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products and of Regulation No 376/2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products and Regulation No 382/2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector, read in conjunction with Article 78 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding, as a rule, post-clearance regularisation of the export declaration, enabling the exported quantity to be entered on the export licence, the export refund to be paid on the basis of that licence and, as the case may be, the security lodged to be released.

Since the words ‘incorrect or incomplete information’ in Article 78(3) of that code must be interpreted as covering both clerical errors or omissions and errors of interpretation of the applicable law, the customs authorities may, on their own initiative or at the request of the declarant, amend the date of the declaration and, consequently, the date of its acceptance. However, the customs authorities, in the assessment they make when the date of the declaration or the date of its acceptance is amended on the basis of Article 78(1) of the code in question, are to take into account, in particular, the possibility of reviewing the statements contained in the declaration to be amended and in the application for amendment. Thus, if the amendment indicates that the objectives of the legislation at issue are not threatened, particularly in that the goods for which the export declaration was submitted were actually exported and sufficient evidence available to the competent authorities allows the connection between the quantity exported and the licence actually covering the export to be established, the customs authorities must, in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Customs Code, take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, taking account of the information available to them.

(see paras 50, 52-55, operative part 2)
Furthermore, since Article 73a of Regulation No 1605/2002 refers, for the fixing of the date to be used to calculate that period, to the detailed implementing rules which, by virtue of Article 183 of that regulation, it is for the European Commission to establish, Article 73a cannot be relied on alone, without its implementing rules, to establish that recovery of a debt owed to the European Union is time-barred. In that regard, those implementing rules can be adopted only in compliance with the objectives underlying the rule thus laid down in Article 73a.

By adopting a general rule under which, as is clear from Article 73a of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, debts owed to the European Union by third parties are time-barred after a period of five years, the EU legislature intended to confer on any debtors of the EU a guarantee that, after that period, in principle, in accordance with the requirements of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, they cannot be subject to measures to recover such debts, in respect of which they are then exempted from proving that they are not its debtors. In that regard, Article 73a of Regulation No 1605/2002 is intended in particular to limit in time the possibility of recovering EU entitlements against third parties, in order to comply with the principle of sound financial management.

Although neither Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities nor Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1605/2002 specifies the period within which a debit note must be sent following the date of the origin of the debt in question, where the applicable texts are silent, the principle of legal certainty requires the institution concerned to make that communication within a reasonable time.

In that regard, having regard to the limitation period for debts laid down in Article 73a of Regulation No 1605/2002, the period in which a debit note is communicated must be presumed to be unreasonable where that communication takes place outside a period of five years from the point at which the institution was, in normal circumstances, in a position to claim its debt. Such a presumption cannot be overturned unless the institution in question establishes that, despite the efforts which it has made, the delay in acting was caused by the debtor’s conduct, particularly time-wasting manoeuvres or bad faith. In the absence of such proof, it must therefore be held that the institution has failed to fulfil the obligations on it under the reasonable period principle.

Moreover, once that failure to fulfil its obligation has been found, the EU Courts cannot, without erring in law, refrain from annulling the second decision to recover the debt in question on the ground that the appellant had not claimed infringement of his rights of the defence.

(see paras 47-49, 55)
Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not preclude the application of national legislation excluding the participation in a tendering procedure of an economic operator who has committed an infringement of competition law, established by a judicial decision having the force of res judicata, for which a fine was imposed.

The notion of professional misconduct, for the purposes of Article 45(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 covers all wrongful conduct which has an impact on the professional credibility of the operator at issue and not only the infringements of ethical standards in the strict sense of the profession to which that operator belongs. In those circumstances, the commission of an infringement of the competition rules, in particular where that infringement was penalised by a fine, constitutes a cause for exclusion under Article 45(2)(d).

Moreover, if such a cause for exclusion is possible under Directive 2004/18, it must a fortiori be regarded as justified in relation to public contracts which fall short of the threshold defined in Article 7 of that directive and which are consequently not subject to the strict special procedures laid down in that directive.

(see paras 34-36, 39, operative part)
Article 4(2) 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 rule of exhaustion of the distribution right set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 does not apply in a situation where a reproduction of a protected work, after having been marketed in the European Union with the copyright holder’s consent, has undergone an alteration of its medium, such as the transfer of that reproduction from a paper poster onto a canvas, and is placed on the market again in its new form.

The EU legislature, by using the terms ‘tangible article’ and ‘that object’ in recital 28 and Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29, wished to give authors control over the initial marketing in the European Union of each tangible object incorporating their intellectual creation. In that regard, a replacement of the medium of a work, such as a transfer of the image of an artistic work from a paper poster onto a painter’s canvas results in the creation of a new object incorporating the image of the protected work, whereas the poster itself ceases to exist. Such an alteration of the copy of the protected work, which provides a result closer to the original, is actually sufficient to constitute a new reproduction of that work, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29, which is covered by the exclusive right of the author and requires his authorisation.

Furthermore, the fact that the ink is saved during the transfer cannot affect the finding that the image’s medium has been altered. What is important is whether the altered object itself, taken as a whole, is, physically, the object that was placed onto the market with the consent of the rightholder. Consequently, the consent of the copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating his work if that object has been altered after its initial marketing in such a way that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work. In such an event, the distribution right of such an object is exhausted only upon the first sale or transfer of ownership of that new object with the consent of the rightholder.

(see paras 37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, operative part)