ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
44

In those circumstances the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (District Court for Commercial Matters, Vienna) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 15(1) of [Directive 90/619], in conjunction with Article 31 of [Directive 92/96], or Article 35(1), in conjunction with Article 36(1), of [Directive 2002/83], or Article 185(1), in conjunction with Article 186(1), of [Directive 2009/138] be interpreted as meaning that — in the absence of national rules on the effects of incorrect information concerning the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded — the period for exercising the right of cancellation does not begin to run if the insurance undertaking specifies in the information that the right of cancellation must be exercised in written form, even though under national law it is possible to cancel in any form? (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 15(1) of [Directive 90/619], in conjunction with Article 31 of [Directive 92/96], be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which, in the event of no information or incorrect information being supplied on the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded, the period for exercising the right of cancellation begins to run at the point in time at which the policyholder was informed — by whatever means — of his or her right of cancellation? (3) Must Article 35(1), in conjunction with Article 36(1), of [Directive 2002/83] be interpreted as meaning that — in the absence of national rules on the effects of no information or incorrect information being supplied on the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded — the policyholder’s right to cancel the contract expires at the latest after the surrender value has been paid out to him or her by reason of his or her having given notice to terminate the contract and thus the contracting parties have performed in full the obligations under the contract? (4) If the first question is answered in the affirmative and/or the third question is answered in the negative, must Article 15(1) of [Directive 90/619], or Article 35(1) of [Directive 2002/83] or Article 186(1) of [Directive 2009/138] be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which the surrender value (the current value for the insurance calculated in accordance with the accepted rules of actuarial calculations) must be reimbursed to the policyholder if he or she exercises his or her right of cancellation? (5) If the fourth question is to be dealt with and is answered in the affirmative, must Article 15(1) of [Directive 90/619], or Article 35(1) of [Directive 2002/83], or Article 186(1) of [Directive 2009/138] be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which, in the event of exercise of the right of cancellation, the claim to a flat rate of interest for the reimbursed premiums due to limitation may be restricted to the proportion covering the period of the last 3 years prior to the bringing of the action?’
11

Article 5 of that directive, entitled ‘Pre-contractual information’, provides: ‘1. In good time before the consumer is bound by any credit agreement or offer, the creditor and, where applicable, the credit intermediary shall, on the basis of the credit terms and conditions offered by the creditor and, if applicable, the preferences expressed and information supplied by the consumer, provide the consumer with the information needed to compare different offers in order to take an informed decision on whether to conclude a credit agreement. Such information, on paper or on another durable medium, shall be provided by means of the Standard European Consumer Credit Information form set out in Annex II. The creditor shall be deemed to have fulfilled the information requirements in this paragraph and in Article 3, paragraphs (1) and (2) of Directive 2002/65/EC if he has supplied the Standard European Consumer Credit Information. The information in question shall specify: … (c) the total amount of credit and the conditions governing the drawdown; … (g) the annual percentage rate of charge and the total amount payable by the consumer, illustrated by means of a representative example mentioning all the assumptions used in order to calculate that rate; where the consumer has informed the creditor of one or more components of his preferred credit, such as the duration of the credit agreement and the total amount of credit, the creditor shall take those components into account; if a credit agreement provides different ways of drawdown with different charges or borrowing rates and the creditor uses the assumption set out in point (b) of Part II of Annex I, he shall indicate that other drawdown mechanisms for this type of credit agreement may result in higher annual percentage rates of charge; …’
6

Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Cancellation’, provides: ‘1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall: (a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and (b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and (c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless: (i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or (ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival; or (iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival. 2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport. 3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. 4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.’
15

Under those circumstances, the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku (District Court, Słupsk) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must the rule of EU law contained in Article 4(2)(a) of [Framework Decision 2004/757], read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that that rule does not preclude the expression “a significant quantity of drugs” from being interpreted on a case-by-case basis as part of the individual assessment of a national court, and that that assessment does not require the application of any objective criterion, in particular that it does not require a finding that the offender possesses drugs for the purpose of performing acts covered by Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, that is to say production, offering, offering for sale, distribution, brokerage, or delivery on any terms whatsoever? (2) In so far as the [Law of on combating drug addiction] contains no precise definition of “a significant quantity of drugs” and leaves the interpretation thereof to the bench adjudicating in a specific case in the exercise of its “judicial discretion”, are the judicial remedies necessary to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the rules of EU law contained in [Framework Decision 2004/757], and in particular Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, sufficient to afford Polish citizens effective protection resulting from the rules of EU law laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking? (3) Is the rule of national law contained in Article 62(2) of the [Law on combating drug addiction] compatible with EU law, and in particular [with the rule] contained in Article 4(2)(a) of [Framework Decision 2004/757], read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, and, if so, is the interpretation which the national Polish courts place on the expression “a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs” contrary to the rule of EU law pursuant to which a person who has committed the offence of possessing large quantities of drugs to perform activities covered by Article 2(1)(c) of [Framework Decision 2004/757] is to be subject to stricter criminal liability? (4) Is Article 62(2) of the [Law on combating drug addiction], which lays down stricter criminal liability for the offence of possessing a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs, as interpreted by the Polish national courts, contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Article 14 [of the ECHR] and Articles 20 and 21 [of the Charter], read in conjunction with Article 6(1) [TEU])?’
2

Under Article 1 of Directive 2014/65: ‘1. This Directive shall apply to investment firms, market operators, data reporting services providers, and third-country firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the establishment of a branch in the Union. 2. This Directive establishes requirements in relation to the following: (a) authorisation and operating conditions for investment firms; (b) provision of investment services or activities by third-country firms through the establishment of a branch; (c) authorisation and operation of regulated markets; (d) authorisation and operation of data reporting services providers; and (e) supervision, cooperation and enforcement by competent authorities. 3. The following provisions shall also apply to credit institutions authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU, when providing one or more investment services and/or performing investment activities: (a) Article 2(2), Article 9(3) and Articles 14 and 16 to 20, (b) Chapter II of Title II excluding second subparagraph of Article 29(2), (c) Chapter III of Title II excluding Article 34(2) and (3) and Article 35(2) to (6) and (9), (d) Articles 67 to 75 and Articles 80, 85 and 86. 4. The following provisions shall also apply to investment firms and to credit institutions authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU when selling or advising clients in relation to structured deposits: (a) Article 9(3), Article 14, and Article 16(2), (3) and (6); (b) Articles 23 to 26, Article 28 and Article 29, excluding the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 thereof, and Article 30; and (c) Articles 67 to 75. 5. Article 17(1) to (6) shall also apply to members or participants of regulated markets and MTFs [(Multilateral Trading Facilities)] who are not required to be authorised under this Directive pursuant to points (a), (e), (i) and (j) of Article 2(1). 6. Articles 57 and 58 shall also apply to persons exempt under Article 2. 7. All multilateral systems in financial instruments shall operate either in accordance with the provisions of Title II concerning MTFs or OTFs [(Organised Trading Facilities)] or the provisions of Title III concerning regulated markets. Any investment firms which, on an organised, frequent, systematic and substantial basis, deal on own account when executing client orders outside a regulated market, an MTF or an OTF shall operate in accordance with Title III of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 84)]. Without prejudice to Articles 23 and 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, all transactions in financial instruments as referred to in the first and the second subparagraphs which are not concluded on multilateral systems or systematic internalisers shall comply with the relevant provisions of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.’
11

Article 187 of that directive reads as follows: ‘1. In the case of capital goods, adjustment shall be spread over five years including that in which the goods were acquired or manufactured. Member States may, however, base the adjustment on a period of five full years starting from the time at which the goods are first used. In the case of immovable property acquired as capital goods, the adjustment period may be extended up to 20 years. 2. The annual adjustment shall be made only in respect of one-fifth of the VAT charged on the capital goods, or, if the adjustment period has been extended, in respect of the corresponding fraction thereof. The adjustment referred to in the first subparagraph shall be made on the basis of the variations in the deduction entitlement in subsequent years in relation to that for the year in which the goods were acquired, manufactured or, where applicable, used for the first time.’
Agriculture — Financing by the EAGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Finding of defects in the control system established by a Member State — Application of flat-rate correction — No breach of the principle of proportionality

(Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No 1306/2013, Art. 52(2))

(see paras 72-76)
1.

Common foreign and security policy – Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Decision to freeze funds – Retention on the basis of a national decision to freeze funds – Conditions – Evidence of continuing risk of involvement in terrorist activities – Reference to the national decision which justified the initial registration – Decision reconsidered, leading to the conclusion that the retention is justified on the basis of recent incidents – Whether permissible (Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(6)) (see paras 38, 39)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Sign capable of bearing multiple meanings – Refusal to register where descriptiveness of at least one of the potential meanings exists – Inapplicable in assessing distinctive character

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see paras 35, 36)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime – Rights of the defence – Notification of inculpatory evidence – Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures – No new grounds – Inculpatory evidence identical to the evidence previously admitted in the initial decision – Infringement of the right to be heard – Absence)

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2016/850, (CFSP) 2017/917 and (CFSP) 2018/778)

(see paras 43-47)
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the interpretation of a contract term – Not included

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169)

(see paras 43, 44, 56, 67)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law – Operative part well founded for other legal reasons – Rejection

(Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 49)
12

Article 1 of that agreement states: ‘1. The Contracting Parties undertake to improve, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the surrender for the purpose of prosecution or execution of sentence between, on the one hand, the Member States and, on the other hand, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Iceland, by taking account of, as minimum standards, the terms of the Convention of 27 September 1996 relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union. 2. The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, to ensure that the extradition system between, on the one hand, the Member States and, on the other hand, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Iceland shall be based on a mechanism of surrender pursuant to an arrest warrant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 3. This Agreement shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in the [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950], or, in case of execution by the judicial authority of a Member State, of the principles referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. 4. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to surrender a person in respect of whom an arrest warrant as defined by this Agreement has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.’
25

In that regard, the referring court notes that part of the German literature takes the view that an application opposing enforcement under Paragraph 767 of the ZPO is in fact to be treated as a matter relating to maintenance obligations within the meaning of Regulation No 4/2009 in so far as the objections raised in such an application, in particular those relating to the fulfilment or subrogation of that claim, are ultimately directed against the order for enforcement as such rather than the manner of the enforcement, which is to be assessed purely under enforcement law. Similarly, the referring court points out that that application opposing enforcement functionally corresponds to an application seeking reduction of the maintenance claim in respect of which an order for enforcement has been issued, which modification application, under Article 8 of Regulation No 4/2009, is subject to the jurisdictional principles set out therein. In the referring court’s view, that interpretation, which is supported by part of the German literature and which the referring court is inclined towards, is the only one compatible with the objective pursued by that regulation, namely guaranteeing the protection and jurisdictionally privileged status of the maintenance creditor, without, accordingly, the creditor having to defend himself, before the courts of the Member State of enforcement of the claim for which an order of enforcement has been issued, against an application opposing enforcement concerning substantive objections to that claim.
10

Article 38 of OUG 57/2007 states: ‘1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 33(1) to (4) and Article 37(1), the central public authority for protection of the environment shall lay down derogations annually and when necessary, provided that there is no acceptable alternative and the derogating measures are not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural environment, and only in the following cases: … (c) in the interests of public health and public safety and, for species of animals other than birds, also for other reasons of public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, and for the consequent benefits of primary importance for the environment; … 2. The derogations shall be laid down by order of the head of the central public authority for protection of the environment and forests, adopted following delivery of the opinion of the Romanian Academy. … 22. The procedure for laying down the derogations shall be approved by order of the central public authority for protection of the environment and forests. 23. The derogations provided for in paragraph 21 shall specify the following: (a) the species to which the derogations apply; (b) the means, systems and methods authorised for capture and killing; (c) the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted; (d) the authority empowered to declare that the necessary conditions obtain and to decide what means, systems or methods may be used, within what limits and by whom; (e) the controls which are to be carried out. …’
33

In those circumstances, the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Regional Court of Appeal, Arnhem-Leeuwarden, Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is a substance which is not a by-product within the meaning of [Directive 2008/98] by definition also not an animal by-product within the meaning of [Regulation No 1069/2009], such that that substance is not excluded from the operation [of Regulation No 1013/2006] pursuant to Article 1(3) [of that Regulation No 1013/2006]? Or can it not be ruled out that a substance falls within the definition of animal by-products within the meaning of [Regulation No 1069/2009] if that substance does not meet the requirements of Article 5(1) of [Directive 2008/98], such that that substance does not necessarily fall under [Regulation No 1013/2006]? (2) How should a shipment covered by the approval requirements of [Regulation No 1774/2002] (now [Regulation No 1069/2009]) be understood within the meaning of Article 1(3) [of Regulation No 1013/2006]: does it refer to the transport (between one country and another country) of animal by-products, irrespective of the category to which that material belongs? Or does it refer to the transport of material referred to in Article 48 of [Regulation No 1069/2009] (formerly Article 8 of Regulation [No] 1774/2002), which is limited to animal by-products or derived products within the meaning of that provision, thus Category 1 material and Category 2 material, and certain products derived therefrom, including processed animal proteins derived from Category 3 material? (3) If a shipment subject to the approval requirements of [Regulation No 1774/2002] (now [Regulation No 1069/2009]) should be understood to refer, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(d) [of Regulation No 1013/2006], to the transport (between one country and another country) of animal by-products, irrespective of the category to which that material belongs, should Article 1(3)(d) [of Regulation No 1013/2006] then be read as referring also to shipments of mixtures of animal by-products and other substances and – if so – is the mixing ratio between the animal by-products and the other substances relevant in that regard? Or does an animal by-product lose the status of animal by-product within the meaning of [Regulation No 1069/2009] and does that animal by-product become waste within the meaning of [Regulation No 1013/2006] as a result of being mixed with another substance?’