ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7

Article 1 of that regulation, under the heading ‘Scope’, provides: ‘1. This Regulation applies to aid granted to undertakings in the fishery and aquaculture sector, with the exception of: (a) aid the amount of which is fixed on the basis of price or quantity of products purchased or put on the market; (b) aid to export-related activities towards third countries or Member States, namely aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to the export activity; (c) aid contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods; (d) aid for the purchase of fishing vessels; (e) aid for the modernisation or replacement of main or ancillary engines of fishing vessels; (f) aid to operations increasing the fishing capacity of a vessel or equipment increasing the ability of a vessel to find fish; (g) aid for the construction of new fishing vessels or importation of fishing vessels; (h) aid to the temporary or permanent cessation of fishing activities unless specifically provided for in the Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 149, p. 1)]; (i) aid to exploratory fishing; (j) aid to the transfer of ownership of a business; (k) aid to direct restocking, unless explicitly provided for as a conservation measure by a Union legal act or in the case of experimental restocking. 2. Where an undertaking is active in the fishery and aquaculture sector and is also active in one or more of the sectors or has other activities falling within the scope of [Commission] Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 [of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] to de minimis aid (OJ 2013 L 352, p. 1)], that Regulation shall apply to aid granted in respect of the latter sectors or activities, provided that the Member State concerned ensures, by appropriate means such as separation of activities or distinction of costs, that the activities in the fishery and aquaculture sector do not benefit from the de minimis aid granted in accordance with that Regulation. 3. Where an undertaking is active in the fishery and aquaculture sector as well as in the primary production of agricultural products falling within the scope of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 [of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector (OJ 2013 L 352, p. 9)], this Regulation shall apply to aid granted in respect of the former sector provided that the Member State concerned ensures, by appropriate means such as separation of activities or distinction of costs, that the primary production of agricultural products does not benefit from de minimis aid granted in accordance with this Regulation.’
9

Article 6 of Directive 2011/92 is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the authorities likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer and on the request for development consent. … 2. The public shall be informed … of the following matters early in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided: (a) the request for development consent; (b) the fact that the project is subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure and, where relevant, the fact that Article 7 applies; … (d) the nature of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision; (e) an indication of the availability of the information gathered pursuant to Article 5; (f) an indication of the times and places at which, and the means by which, the relevant information will be made available; (g) details of the arrangements for public participation made pursuant to paragraph 5 of this article. 3. Member States shall ensure that, within reasonable time-frames, the following is made available to the public concerned: (a) any information gathered pursuant to Article 5; (b) in accordance with national legislation, the main reports and advice issued to the competent authority or authorities at the time when the public concerned is informed in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article; (c) in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information, information other than that referred to in paragraph 2 of this article which is relevant for the decision in accordance with Article 8 of this directive and which only becomes available after the time the public concerned was informed in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article. 4. The public concerned shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and shall, for that purpose, be entitled to express comments and opinions when all options are open to the competent authority or authorities before the decision on the request for development consent is taken. …’
6

Recitals 1, 3, 5, 8, 23, 27, 29, 33 and 65 of Regulation 2015/848 state: ‘(1) On 12 December 2012, the [European] Commission adopted a report on the application of [Regulation No 1346/2000]. The report concluded that the Regulation is functioning well in general but that it would be desirable to improve the application of certain of its provisions in order to enhance the effective administration of cross-border insolvency proceedings. Since that Regulation has been amended several times and further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interest of clarity. … (3) The proper functioning of the internal market requires that cross-border insolvency proceedings should operate efficiently and effectively. … … (5) It is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market to avoid incentives for parties to transfer assets or judicial proceedings from one Member State to another, seeking to obtain a more favourable legal position to the detriment of the general body of creditors (forum shopping). … (8) In order to achieve the aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of insolvency proceedings having cross-border effects, it is necessary, and appropriate, that the provisions on jurisdiction, recognition and applicable law in this area should be contained in a Union measure which is binding and directly applicable in Member States. … (23) This Regulation enables the main insolvency proceedings to be opened in the Member State where the debtor has the centre of its main interests. Those proceedings have universal scope and are aimed at encompassing all the debtor’s assets. … … (27) Before opening insolvency proceedings, the competent court should examine of its own motion whether the centre of the debtor’s main interests or the debtor’s establishment is actually located within its jurisdiction. … (29) This Regulation should contain a number of safeguards aimed at preventing fraudulent or abusive forum shopping. … (33) In the event that the court seised of the request to open insolvency proceedings finds that the centre of main interests is not located on its territory, it should not open main insolvency proceedings. … (65) This Regulation should provide for the immediate recognition of judgments concerning the opening, conduct and closure of insolvency proceedings which fall within its scope, and of judgments handed down in direct connection with such insolvency proceedings. Automatic recognition should therefore mean that the effects attributed to the proceedings by the law of the Member State in which the proceedings were opened extend to all other Member States. The recognition of judgments delivered by the courts of the Member States should be based on the principle of mutual trust. To that end, grounds for non-recognition should be reduced to the minimum necessary. This is also the basis on which any dispute should be resolved where the courts of two Member States both claim competence to open the main insolvency proceedings. The decision of the first court to open proceedings should be recognised in the other Member States without those Member States having the power to scrutinise that court’s decision.’
10

Article 13 of Directive 82/76 added an annex to Directive 75/363, entitled ‘Characteristics of full-time and part-time training of specialists’. That annex provided: ‘1. Full-time training of specialists Such training shall be carried out in specific posts recognised by the competent authority. It shall involve participation in all the medical activities of the department where the training is carried out, including on-call duties, so that the trainee specialist devotes to this practical and theoretical training all his professional activity throughout the duration of the standard working week and throughout the year according to provisions agreed by the competent authorities. Accordingly these posts shall be subject to appropriate remuneration. Training may be interrupted for reasons such as military service, secondment, pregnancy or sickness. The total duration of the training shall not be reduced by reason of any interruption. 2. Part-time training of specialists This training shall meet the same requirements as full-time training, from which it shall differ only in the possibility of limiting participation in medical activities to a period at least half of that provided for in the second subparagraph of point 1. The competent authorities shall ensure that the total duration and quality of part-time training of specialists are not less than those of full-time trainees. Appropriate remuneration shall consequently be attached to such part-time training.’
13

Article 37 of the DH2 Law is worded as follows: ‘1. In relation to contracts falling within the scope of this Law, the parties may apply to the court for a declaration of invalidity of the contract or of certain contractual terms (“partial invalidity”) – irrespective of the grounds for such invalidity – only if they also apply for a determination of the legal consequences of invalidity (namely, a declaration of validity or effectiveness of the contract up to the time of adoption of the decision). If they do not – and if the parties fail to act on a request to remedy the defects – the court may not examine the substance of the case. If the parties apply to the court for a determination of the legal consequences of total or partial invalidity, they shall also state what legal consequences the court should apply. As regards the application of the legal consequences, the parties shall submit a specific, quantified claim which also includes the settlement of the accounts between them. 2. In the light of the provisions of paragraph 1, as regards contracts falling within the scope of this Law and on the basis of Paragraph 239/A(1) of [the previous Civil Code] or Paragraph 6:108(2) of the [Polgári törvénykönyvről szóló 2013. évi V. törvény (Law No V of 2013 establishing the Civil Code)], the action shall be dismissed without the parties being ordered to appear in the proceedings in progress seeking a declaration of total or partial invalidity of the contract or those proceedings shall be discontinued, provided that the conditions laid down in this Law are met. The action shall not be dismissed without the parties being ordered to appear nor shall the proceedings be discontinued if the party concerned, in addition to seeking a declaration of total or partial invalidity of the contract, has also sought another form of order. In that case, that party shall be deemed not to maintain the form of order seeking a declaration of invalidity. The same course of action shall also be followed in proceedings resumed after a stay has ended.’
33

In that regard, it should be pointed out that, while it is true that Article 12 of the order of 23 December 2016 is addressed not in itself to the persons liable to pay the flat-rate tourist tax, but to persons who have acted as intermediaries in the operation of tourist accommodation in return for payment, and that its purpose is the provision of information to the authorities in the Brussels Capital Region, on pain of being fined, the fact remains that, in the first place, the authorities in receipt of that information are the tax authorities; in the second place, as the referring court itself observes, that article forms part of tax legislation, namely the order of 23 December 2016; and, in the third place, the information which that provision requires to be transmitted is indissociable, as regards its substance, from that legislation, since that information alone is capable of identifying the person actually liable for payment of the tax, the basis for assessment of the tax, namely the location of the home accommodation, the number of accommodation units and the number of overnight stays and, consequently, the amount of tax.
8

Article 45b of that law reads as follows: ‘1. An application for the grant of a long-term resident’s EU residence permit shall be refused where, immediately before the application is made, the foreign national: (a) has a temporary right of residence pursuant to a fixed-term residence permit referred to in Article 14; (b) has a formally limited right of residence; (c) is resident on the basis of a special privileged status; (d) is resident pursuant to a fixed-term residence permit referred to in Article 28 that was not granted pursuant to Article 29(1)(a) or (b); (e) is resident pursuant to a fixed-term residence permit referred to in Article 28 that was granted pursuant to Article 29(2), in the case of a foreign national who holds a residence permit referred to in Article 28 that was not granted pursuant to Article 29(1)(a) or (b). 2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, an application for the grant of a long-term resident’s EU residence permit may be refused only where the foreign national: (a) has not been lawfully resident for a continuous period of five years immediately prior to submitting the application referred to in Article 8, taking into account paragraph 3; (b) during the period referred to in (a), has resided outside the Netherlands either for 6 months consecutively or longer or for a total of 10 months or longer; (c) does not have, independently and on a long-term basis, sufficient means of subsistence, whether or not jointly with the family member with whom he/she resides; (d) has been convicted by a judgment which has become final of an offence punishable by a prison sentence of three years or more, or the measure referred to in Article 37a of the [Wetboek van Strafrecht (Criminal Code)] has been imposed on him/her in that regard; (e) represents a threat to national security; (f) does not have sufficient sickness insurance for himself/herself and for his/her dependent family members; or (g) has not passed the examination provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of the [Wet inburgering (Law on civic integration)] or obtained a diploma, certificate or other document referred to in Article 5(1)(c) of that law. 3. For the calculation of the period referred to in paragraph 2(a), no account shall be taken of residence within the meaning of paragraph 1 and residence within the meaning of paragraph 2(b), with the exception of residence for the purpose of studies or vocational training, which shall be counted as half. 4. Rules concerning the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 may be established by or pursuant to a general administrative measure.’
14

Chapter VI of that regulation, headed ‘Procedures for taking charge and taking back’, contains, in Section I, which is headed ‘Start of the procedure’, Article 20, the heading of which is identical to that section and which provides: ‘1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international protection is first lodged with a Member State. 2. An application for international protection shall be deemed to have been lodged once a form submitted by the applicant or a report prepared by the authorities has reached the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. Where an application is not made in writing, the time elapsing between the statement of intention and the preparation of a report should be as short as possible. 3. For the purposes of this Regulation, the situation of a minor who is accompanying the applicant and meets the definition of family member shall be indissociable from that of his or her family member and shall be a matter for the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection of that family member, even if the minor is not individually an applicant, provided that it is in the minor’s best interests. The same treatment shall be applied to children born after the applicant arrives on the territory of the Member States, without the need to initiate a new procedure for taking charge of them. …’
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union and by failing to notify the text of such provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that framework decision;
4

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, entitled ‘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 eighteen 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. …’
15

In those circumstances, the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Tax Disputes Commission under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is national legislation under which a VAT payer can have the right to opt to charge VAT in respect of [the supply of] VAT-exempt immovable property only if the property is transferred to a taxable person who has registered as a VAT payer as at the time of conclusion of the transaction compatible with the interpretation of Article 135 and Article 137 of the [VAT] Directive and the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is an interpretation of the provisions of national law that the supplier of immovable property must adjust the deduction of the VAT borne on the acquisition of the immovable property transferred, when he has opted to charge VAT in respect of the supply of the immovable property and such option is impossible under the national requirements owing to a single condition, that is to say, owing to the purchaser not having the status of registered VAT payer, consistent with the provisions of the [VAT] Directive governing the supplier’s right to deduct VAT and adjustment of the deduction and with the principles of neutrality of VAT and effectiveness? (3) Is an administrative practice under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the supplier of immovable property is required to adjust the deduction of input tax on the acquisition/production of the immovable property, since the transaction for the sale of that property is regarded as a VAT-exempt supply of immovable property owing to the absence of a right to opt to charge VAT (the purchaser not having a VAT identification number at the time of conclusion of the transaction), although at the time of conclusion of the transaction the purchaser of the immovable property had applied for registration as a VAT payer, and was registered as a VAT payer one month after the conclusion of the transaction, consistent with the provisions of the [VAT] Directive governing the supplier’s right to deduct VAT and adjustment of the deduction and with the principle of neutrality of VAT? In such a case is it important to determine whether the purchaser of the immovable property who registered as a VAT payer after the transaction really used the acquired property in activities subject to VAT and there is no evidence of fraud or abuse?’
3

According to the first to seventh recitals of Directive 87/357: ‘Whereas in [several] Member States legal provisions or regulations are in force concerning certain products which, appearing to be other than they are, endanger the safety or health of consumers; whereas, however, these provisions differ in content, scope and field of application; whereas, in particular, these provisions concern in certain Member States all products which resemble foodstuffs while not being such whilst in other Member States they concern products likely to be confused with foodstuffs, especially confectionery; Whereas this situation creates significant barriers to the free movement of goods and unequal competitive conditions within the Community without ensuring effective protection for consumers, especially children; Whereas these obstacles to the establishment and operation of the common market must be eliminated and adequate protection ensured for consumers in accordance with the Council resolutions of 14 April 1975 and 19 May 1981 respectively on the first [OJ 1975 C 92, p. 1] and second programmes [OJ 1981 C 133, p. 1] of the European Economic Community for a consumer protection and information policy and the Council resolution of 23 June 1986 on a new impetus for consumer protection policy [OJ 1986 C 167, p. 1]; Whereas the health and safety of consumers should enjoy an equivalent level of protection in the different Member States; Whereas to that end it is necessary to prohibit the marketing, import and both the production and the export of products which, since they can be confused with foodstuffs, jeopardise the health or safety of consumers; Whereas provision should be made for controls to be carried out by the competent authorities of the Member States; Whereas, in accordance with the principles embodied in the Council resolutions on consumer protection, dangerous products must be withdrawn from the market’.