ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
12

The general rules for the interpretation of the CN, which are set out in Part One, Title I A, provide: ‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles: (1) The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions. … (3) When ... goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to only part of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to only part of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods. (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable. (c) when goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. … (6) For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section and chapter notes also apply, unless the context requires otherwise.’
13

Under the heading ‘Registration of intra-Community transactions’, Article 47 of DL No 331/93 provides as follows: ‘1. Invoices relating to the intra-Community acquisitions referred to in Article 38(2) and (3)(b) and to the transactions referred to in Article 46(1), second sentence, after having been completed in accordance with the first sentence of Article 46(1), shall be recorded in the month in which they are received or subsequently, but in any event within 15 days of receipt and with reference to the corresponding month, separately in the register referred to in Article 23 of [DPR No 633/72], in sequential order, indicating also the consideration for transactions expressed in foreign currency. The invoices referred to in Article 46(5) shall be recorded in the month in which they were issued. They shall be registered separately, within the periods provided for by the preceding sentences, also in the register provided for in Article 25 of the aforementioned Decree, by reference to the month in which they were received or in which they were issued, respectively. 2. The taxpayers referred to in Article 22 of [DPR No 633/72] may register the invoices referred to in paragraph 1 in the register mentioned in Article 24 of the Decree instead of the register of issued invoices, subject to the requirements regarding periods and procedure set out in paragraph 1. 3. The taxpayers referred to in Article 4(4) of [DPR No 633/72] who are not taxable persons for VAT purposes shall register, after numbering in sequential order, the invoices referred to in paragraph 1 of this article in an ad hoc register, held and maintained in accordance with Article 39 of [DPR No 633/72], in the month following that in which they obtained those invoices or, in respect of the invoices referred to in Article 46(5), during the month in which those invoices were issued. 4. The invoices relating to the intra-Community transactions referred to in Article 46(2) shall be recorded separately in the register provided for in Article 23 of [DPR No 633/72], in sequential order and by reference to their date of issue. ...’
13

In those circumstances, the Landgericht Darmstadt decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Do the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of the debtor for reimbursement of payments which were made after the company became insolvent or after it had been established that the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets? 2. Do the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of the debtor for reimbursement of payments which were made after the company became insolvent or after it had been established that the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets, if the managing director is not domiciled in another Member State … but in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention? 3. Does the action referred to in question 1 above fall under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000? 4. If the action referred to in question 1 above does not fall under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 and/or the jurisdiction of the court in that regard does not extend to a managing director who is domiciled in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention: does the case concern bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions or analogous proceedings within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano II Convention? 5. If question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative: (a) Does the court of the Member State in which the debtor has its registered office have jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of the Lugano II Convention, in relation to an action of the kind referred to in question 1 above? (i) With regard to that action, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of the Lugano II Convention? (ii) With regard to that action, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to a contract for services within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of the Lugano II Convention? (b) In relation to the action referred to in question 1 above, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Lugano II Convention?’
10

Article 3 of the Law on historic buildings lays down the procedure for according property the status of a historic building in the following terms: ‘1. The minister may on his own initiative accord a historic building the status of a protected historic building. 2. Before taking a decision in this regard, the minister shall consult the mayor and aldermen of the municipality in which the historic building is situated, and the provincial executive if the historic building is situated outside the built-up areas designated under the Law on Road Traffic 1994. 3. The minister shall notify persons designated in the basic registration of the land register as owners and as holders of restricted rights of the request for an opinion as referred to in paragraph 2. 4. The mayor and aldermen shall grant the interested parties referred to in paragraph 3 the opportunity to be heard and shall organise the consultation referred to in Article 2(2). 5. The mayor and aldermen shall give their opinion within five months, and the provincial executive within four months, following the sending of the request for an opinion as referred to in paragraph 2. 6. The minister shall take the decision, after hearing the views of the Council, within ten months following the date on which the request for an opinion was sent to the mayor and aldermen.’
14

In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Does it constitute — for the moment notwithstanding Article 52(1) of [the Charter] and Article 6 of [Directive 2000/78/EC] — (direct) unequal treatment on grounds of age for the purposes of Article 21(1) of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of the directive if periods of study at an intermediate or secondary school are credited as pre-service pensionable periods only if they were completed after the civil servant reached the age of 18, where those pre-service pensionable periods are important not only for the pension entitlement but also for the amount of that pension and that pension (total pension) is regarded in national law as the continued payment of remuneration in the context of a public-law employment relationship which still exists even after the civil servant has retired? 2. If so, may a civil servant — in the absence of a justification in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive (see question 3 below) — rely on the direct applicability of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2 of the directive in proceedings concerning an application for the crediting of pre-service pensionable periods even if he is not yet retired at that time, especially since under national law — if the legal position has not changed upon his retirement — the legal force of the rejection of such an application could be held against him in a pension assessment procedure or in the case of a fresh application for the crediting of those periods? 3. If so, is this unequal treatment for the purposes of Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive (a) justified in order to accord to persons whose date of birth lies after the date on which school began in the year they started school or to persons who attend a type of school with an extended upper stage and, for that reason, have to attend school after the age of 18 in order to complete their studies the same conditions as to persons who complete intermediate or secondary school before the age of 18, even if the eligibility of periods of school attendance after the age of 18 is not restricted to the abovementioned cases; (b) justified in order to exclude from the entitlement periods in which, in general, no gainful activity takes place and accordingly no contributions are paid? Does such a justification exist irrespective of the fact that at first no contributions are payable also in respect of periods of attendance at intermediate or secondary schools after the age of 18 and in the event of the subsequent crediting of such periods of school attendance a special pension contribution is payable in any case? (c) justified because the exclusion of the crediting of pre-service pensionable periods completed before the age of 18 is to be regarded as equivalent to setting an ‘age for admission to an occupational social security scheme’ within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the directive?’
7

Article 6(1) to (3) of Directive 89/105 provides: ‘The following provisions shall apply if a medicinal product is covered by the national health insurance system only after the competent authorities have decided to include the medicinal product concerned in a positive list of medicinal products covered by the national health insurance system. (1) Member States shall ensure that a decision on an application submitted, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Member State concerned, by the holder of a marketing authorisation to include a medicinal product in the list of medicinal products covered by the health insurance systems is adopted and communicated to the applicant within 90 days of its receipt. Where an application under this Article may be made before the competent authorities have agreed the price to be charged for the product pursuant to Article 2, or where a decision on the price of a medicinal product and a decision on its inclusion within the list of products covered by the health insurance system are taken after a single administrative procedure, the time-limit shall be extended for a further 90 days. The applicant shall furnish the competent authorities with adequate information. If the information supporting the application is inadequate, the time-limit shall he suspended and the competent authorities shall forthwith notify the applicant of what detailed additional information is required. Where a Member State does not permit an application to be made under this Article before the competent authorities have agreed the price to be charged for the product pursuant to Article 2, the Member State concerned shall ensure that the overall period of time taken by the two procedures does not exceed 180 days. This time-limit may be extended in accordance with Article 2 or suspended in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subparagraph. (2) Any decision not to include a medicinal product in the list of products covered by the health insurance system shall contain a statement of reasons based upon objective and verifiable criteria, including, if appropriate, any expert opinions or recommendations on which the decision is based. In addition, the applicant shall be informed of the remedies available to him under the laws in force and of the time limits allowed for applying for such remedies. (3) Before the date referred to in Article 11(1), Member States shall publish in an appropriate publication and communicate to the Commission the criteria which are to be taken into account by the competent authorities in deciding whether or not to include medicinal products on the lists.’
16

Article 110 of Law No XL of 2008 concerning the supply of natural gas (A földgázellátásról szóló 2008. évi XL törvény), provides: ‘(1) The manager shall draw up the rules, procedures and modus operandi of the interconnected natural gas network, the minimum content of commercial agreements, accounting and measuring, and exchange of data, as well as the network code containing the detailed rules relating to daily balancing. … (2) The network code shall be established by taking account of security of supply, quality requirements, competitive neutrality and free access to the interconnected network. During the establishment of that code, the manager shall consult a network code committee, made up and operating in accordance with legislative provisions or special regulations. (3) The manager shall every year review the network code established in accordance with Paragraph (2). For that purpose, he shall consult the network code committee and, in the event of amendment, he shall send [the proposed amendment/s] for approval, before 31 October every year, to the regulatory authority, accompanied by opinions received. The regulatory authority shall refuse to approve the network code where it is unlawful or where it hinders effective competition or the implementation of the principles and rules of price regulation, or also where it permits the discriminatory treatment of certain customers. It shall oblige the manager, setting out its grounds, to amend the draft and resubmit it within a time-limit to be determined by it. The holders of an authorisation, the natural gas producers, the network users and the customers are required to respect the relevant rules of the network code which has been approved. (4) In the event of amendment of the law or a regulation, or where the network code hinders effective competition or the implementation of principles and rules of price regulation, or also where it permits the discriminatory treatment of certain customers, the regulatory authority, after consulting with the holders of an authorisation and the network users, shall oblige the manager, setting out its grounds, to amend the code within a time-limit to be determined by it. Failing any amendment, it may impose a fine and amend the code on its own initiative. (5) The network code and its amendments shall be published in a consolidated version on the Internet site of the holders of an authorisation, accompanied by the approval decisions of the regulatory authority. …’
21

Circular No 756 of 12 December 2011 of the Luxembourg Land Registration and Estates Department provides: ‘Since there has not been a unanimous interpretation of the notion of “books” in the Member States of the [European Union], the Government has decided, for reasons of neutrality, that a broad interpretation should be given to that term, referred to in point 5 of Annex Β to the [VAT] law and point 5(a) of Article 2 of [the Grand Ducal Regulation of 21 December 1991] so that no distinction is to be made between physical formats and digital formats, where they are functionally identical. That interpretation is implicitly supported by the Communication of 6 December 2011 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the future of VAT [COM(2011) 851 final], in which it is stated ... that “the issue of equal treatment for products which are available in both traditional and online formats provoked considerable reactions in the public consultation. Those issues need to be addressed”. This circular is applicable as from 1 January 2012.’
18

Following the filing of two complaints, one of which was made by Mr Andersen, concerning the public service contracts awarded to DSB, the Commission decided on 10 September 2008 to initiate the formal review procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC (‘the initiating decision’). At the end of that procedure, on 24 February 2010, it adopted the decision at issue, Articles 1 to 3 of which read as follows: ‘Article 1 The public transport service contracts concluded between the Danish Ministry of Transport and [DSB] constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) [TFEU]. The State aid is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 93 [TFEU] in so far as the conditions of Articles 2 and 3 of this Decision are complied with. Article 2 Denmark shall introduce into all current public transport service contracts with [DSB] the refund mechanism described in recitals 222 to 240 and 356 of this Decision, the principal characteristics of which are as follows: — Adjustment of the contractual payments at the end of the financial year by determining a gross reduction calculated on the basis of the following formula: Total revenue — reasonable profit — Total expenditure = gross reduction — Modulation of the gross reduction to take account of efficiency gains and improvements in quality of service according to the following formula and parameters: Refund mechanism = gross reduction — corrections (Costs Δ. + Pas.km Δ) = net reduction — Cost Δ: reduction in costs (per passenger-kilometre) compared with the average cost over the past 4 years in accordance with the calculation: differential in cost per passenger-kilometre (as a percentage) compared with the average cost over the last 4 years multiplied by a total cost basis, and — Pas.km Δ: increase in passenger traffic measured in terms of passenger-kilometres (DKK [(Danish kroner)] 0.80 per passenger-kilometre), — the total reductions on account of improvements in performance may not exceed the gross reduction in a given year. The net reduction is therefore between zero and the gross reduction. — Introduction of an upper limit on the refund mechanism making it possible to guarantee that the profit is maintained at a reasonable level according to the following formula and characteristics: Reasonable profit (6%) + corrections (Cost Δ. + Pas.km Δ) / Equity capital < 12% — the calculation takes account only of the share of equity capital corresponding to DSB’s public service activity, — the upper limit on the reasonable profit is fixed at a 12% return on equity, but with a maximum of 10% over 3 years. Article 3 Any compensation due to DSB from Ansaldo Breda on account of the late delivery of rolling stock should be repaid to the Danish State.’
Review of the legal basis of an act enables the powers of the author of the act to be verified and the procedure for the adoption of that act to be checked as to whether it was vitiated by any irregularity. The choice of legal basis for an EU measure must rest on objective factors amenable to judicial review, including the purpose and content of that measure.

In view of the broad scope of the aims and objectives of the common foreign and security policy, as expressed in Articles 3(5) TEU and 21 TEU, and specific provisions relating to that policy, in particular Articles 23 TEU and 24 TEU, the General Court did not err in law in ruling that Decision 2011/172 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt could lawfully be adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU in so far as it forms part of a policy of supporting the new Egyptian authorities, intended to promote both the economic and political stability of Egypt and, in particular, to assist the authorities of that country in their fight against the misappropriation of State funds, and, accordingly, is fully based on the common foreign and security policy and satisfies the objectives referred to in Article 21(2)(b) and (d) TEU.

(see paras 42, 43, 46)
Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators must be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who is carried on the basis of a contract between his employer and that air carrier in order to perform a specific task is a passenger within the meaning of that provision. If the occupant does not perform tasks of the flight crew of the aircraft he does not fall into the category of member of the flight crew. Similarly, the fact that that occupant has the task of opening the helicopter door at the pilot’s direction does not suffice to confer on him the status of member of the cabin crew, since the pilot is always authorised to give instructions to any of the people on board the aircraft, including the passengers.

Article 17 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air must be interpreted as meaning that a person who comes within the definition of passenger within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators also comes within the definition of passenger within the meaning of Article 17 of that convention, once that person has been carried on the basis of a contract of carriage within the meaning of Article 3 of that convention.

Although under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Montreal Convention the status of passenger is linked to the issuance of an individual or collective document of carriage, it follows from Article 3(5) of that convention that non-compliance with the provisions of the paragraphs preceding that paragraph do not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which, none the less, is to be subject to the rules of that convention, including those relating to limitation of liability. Accordingly, where a contract of carriage exists and all the other conditions for the application of that convention are fulfilled, it applies, irrespective of which form that contract of carriage might take.

(see paras 37-39, 42, operative part 2)