ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
17

In those circumstances the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Should point 7(c) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 … be interpreted as covering also the development of existing roads with four or more lanes? (2) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is point 7(c) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 more specific than point 7(b) of Annex I to that directive and does it for that reason take priority in application? (3) If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative: Does the term “express road” in point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 presuppose that the road section in question is a main international traffic artery within the meaning of the [AGR]? (4) If Questions 1, 2 or 3 are answered in the negative: Does the term “construction” in point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 apply to a road development under which the existing route of the road does not undergo any significant alteration? (5) If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative: Does the term “construction” in point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 presuppose a minimum length with regard to the road section in question? If so, must this involve a continuous section of road? If so, is the minimum length more than a continuous length of 2.6 km or, where the lengths of multiple separate sections of road are to be added together, more than a total of 4.4 km? (6) If Question 5 is answered in the negative: Does the second reference in point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 (construction of express roads) apply to a measure for the development of a road in a built-up area within the meaning of the [AGR]?’
37

In those circumstances, the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Does [EU] law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, in certain circumstances … require that the national limitation period, such as that in Article 100 of the Consolidated Laws on State accounting applicable to a claim for compensation made by an individual against the Belgian State for infringement of Article 43 [EC] by the legislature, should not start to run until that infringement has been established or, on the contrary, is the principle of effectiveness sufficiently ensured in those circumstances by the opportunity that is open to that individual to stop the limitation period running by having process served by a bailiff? 2. Must Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC and the concept of a “purely internal situation”, which is liable to limit reliance on those provisions by an individual in proceedings before a national court, be interpreted as precluding the application of EU law in proceedings between a Belgian national and the Belgian State in which redress is sought for damage caused by an alleged infringement of [EU] law resulting from the adoption and maintaining in force of Belgian legislation such as Article 3 of Royal Decree No 143 … which applies without distinction to Belgian nationals and nationals of other Member States? 3. Must the principle of the primacy of EU law and Article 4(3) TEU be interpreted as not allowing the rule establishing the authority of res judicata to be disapplied in connection with the review or setting aside of a judicial decision which has become res judicata and which proves to be contrary to EU law but, on the contrary, as allowing a national rule establishing the authority of res judicata to be disapplied when the rule would require the adoption, on the basis of that judicial decision which has become res judicata but is contrary to EU law, of another judicial decision which would perpetuate the infringement of EU law by the first judicial decision? 4. Could the Court confirm that the question whether the rule establishing the authority of res judicata must be disapplied in the case of a judicial decision which has become res judicata but is contrary to EU law in the context of an application for review or setting aside of that decision is not a question materially identical, within the meaning of the judgments [of 27 March 1963 in DaCosta and Others (28/62 to 30/62, EU:C:1963:6) and 6 October 1982 in Cilfit and Others (283/81, EU:C:1982:335)], to the question whether the rule establishing the authority of res judicata is contrary to EU law in the context of an application for a (new) decision which would repeat the infringement of EU law, so that the court giving judgment at last instance cannot escape its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling?’
7

Under the HS Explanatory Notes concerning heading 8543 of the HS: ‘This heading covers all electrical appliances and apparatus, not falling in any other heading of this Chapter, nor covered more specifically by a heading of any other Chapter of the Nomenclature, nor excluded by the operation of a Legal Note to Section XVI or to this Chapter. The principal electrical goods covered more specifically by other Chapters are electrical machinery of Chapter 84 and certain instruments and apparatus of Chapter 90. The electrical appliances and apparatus of this heading must have individual functions. The introductory provisions of the Explanatory Note to heading 84.79 concerning machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions apply, mutatis mutandis, to the appliances and apparatus of this heading. Most of the appliances of this heading consist of an assembly of electrical goods or parts (valves, transformers, capacitors, chokes, resistors, etc.) operating wholly electrically. However, the heading also includes electrical goods incorporating mechanical features provided that such features are subsidiary to the electrical function of the machine or appliance.’
13

Article 22 of that directive, entitled ‘Postponement of attainment deadlines and exemption from the obligation to apply certain limit values’, is worded as follows: ‘1. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide or benzene cannot be achieved by the deadlines specified in Annex XI, a Member State may postpone those deadlines by a maximum of five years for that particular zone or agglomeration, on condition that an air quality plan is established in accordance with Article 23 for the zone or agglomeration to which the postponement would apply; such air quality plan shall be supplemented by the information listed in Section B of Annex XV related to the pollutants concerned and shall demonstrate how conformity will be achieved with the limit values before the new deadline. 2. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for PM10 as specified in Annex XI cannot be achieved because of site-specific dispersion characteristics, adverse climatic conditions or transboundary contributions, a Member State shall be exempt from the obligation to apply those limit values until 11 June 2011 provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and that the Member State shows that all appropriate measures have been taken at national, regional and local level to meet the deadlines. 3. Where a Member State applies paragraphs 1 or 2, it shall ensure that the limit value for each pollutant is not exceeded by more than the maximum margin of tolerance specified in Annex XI for each of the pollutants concerned. 4. Member States shall notify the Commission where, in their view, paragraphs 1 or 2 are applicable, and shall communicate the air quality plan referred to in paragraph 1 including all relevant information necessary for the Commission to assess whether or not the relevant conditions are satisfied. In its assessment, the Commission shall take into account estimated effects on ambient air quality in the Member States, at present and in the future, of measures that have been taken by the Member States as well as estimated effects on ambient air quality of current Community measures and planned Community measures to be proposed by the Commission. Where the Commission has raised no objections within nine months of receipt of that notification, the relevant conditions for the application of paragraphs 1 or 2 shall be deemed to be satisfied. If objections are raised, the Commission may require Member States to adjust or provide new air quality plans.’
6

Under Article 142 of the Law on insolvency and bankruptcy, entitled ‘Discharge from bankruptcy’: ‘A natural person who is bankrupt shall be granted the benefit of discharge from the remaining debts owed to creditors with a declared interest who have not been satisfied in the bankruptcy proceedings, provided that he: (1) has cooperated with the authorities carrying out the procedure by providing all information and documentation necessary to clear the liabilities and by making every effort to ensure the effective conduct of the transactions; (2) has not in any way delayed, or helped to delay, the conduct of the proceedings; (3) has not infringed Article 48; (4) has not benefited from any other discharge from bankruptcy in the ten years preceding the request; (5) has not deducted assets or set out non-existent liabilities, caused or aggravated the imbalance, thereby making it seriously difficult to reconstruct the property and turnover, or committed credit fraud; (6) has not been found guilty, by a final judgment, of fraudulent bankruptcy, or of offences against the national economy, industry and commerce, or of any other offence committed in connection with the pursuit of the undertaking’s activity, save where he has been rehabilitated in respect of those offences. If criminal proceedings are ongoing in respect of one of those offences, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the outcome of those criminal proceedings. Discharge from bankruptcy cannot be granted if the creditors with a declared interest in the bankruptcy proceedings have not been satisfied, at least in part. The following are excluded from the discharge from bankruptcy: (a) maintenance obligations and, in any event, obligations arising from relationships unconnected with the operations of the undertaking; (b) debts relating to compensation for damage resulting from non-contractual liability, and criminal and administrative penalties of a pecuniary nature which are not ancillary to debts which have been extinguished. Rights claimed by creditors vis-à-vis persons jointly liable, joint and several debtors and persons liable by way of recourse shall remain unaffected.’
13

Article 193 of the CAP provided: ‘1. Insurance undertakings with their head office in other Member States shall be subject to the prudential supervision of the home Member State authority, including, in the case of business carried on under the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services in the territory of the Republic. 2. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1, where the [IVASS] finds that the insurance undertaking is not compliant with the provisions of Italian law in force, it shall notify the undertaking of that infringement and order it to comply with the laws in force. 3. If the undertaking is not compliant with the laws in force, the [IVASS] shall so inform the supervisory authority of the home Member State, and ask it to adopt the measures necessary to put an end to the irregularities found. 4. Where the home State authority fails to take action or the action taken proves inadequate, where the irregularities committed may adversely affect the general interest or where there is an urgent need to protect the interests of insured persons and other persons entitled to insurance benefits, the [IVASS] may, after first informing the supervisory authority of the home Member State, take the necessary action against the insurance undertaking, including prohibiting it from concluding new insurance contracts under the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services, with the effects referred to in Article 167. 5. If the insurance undertaking which has committed the infringement carries on its business through a branch or owns assets in the territory of the Republic, the administrative penalties applicable under Italian law shall be imposed on that branch or shall take the form of confiscation of the assets present in Italian territory. 6. Measures imposing penalties or restrictions on the pursuit of business under the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services shall be notified to the undertaking concerned. In its dealings with the [IVASS], the insurance undertaking shall communicate in Italian.’
16

Article 123(1) and (3) of the regulation states: ‘1. Member States shall recognise interbranch organisations which: (a) are made up of representatives of economic activities linked to the production of, trade in, and/or processing of products in the following sectors: (i) the olive oil and table olives sector; (ii) the tobacco sector; (b) are formed on the initiative of all or some of the organisations or associations which constitute them; (c) pursue a specific aim, which may, in particular relate to: (i) concentrating and coordinating supply and marketing of the produce of the members; (ii) adapting production and processing jointly to the requirements of the market and improving the product; (iii) promoting the rationalisation and improvement of production and processing; (iv) carrying out research into sustainable production methods and market developments. … 3. Further to paragraph 1, Member States shall, with regard to the fruit and vegetables sector, and may, with regard to the wine sector, also recognise interbranch organisations which: … (c) carry out one, and in the case of the fruit and vegetables sector, two or more, of the following activities in one or more regions of the Community, taking into account the interests of consumers, and, without prejudice to other sectors, in the wine sector taking into account public health and the interests of consumers: (i) improving knowledge and transparency of production and the market; (ii) helping to coordinate better the way the products of the fruit and vegetables and the wine sectors are placed on the market, in particular by means of research and market studies; (iii) drawing up standard forms of contract compatible with Community rules; (iv) exploiting to a fuller extent the potential of the fruit and vegetables produced, and the potential of production in the wine sector; (v) providing the information and carrying out the research necessary to adjust production towards products more suited to market requirements and consumer tastes and expectations, in particular with regard to product quality and protection of the environment; (vi) seeking ways of restricting the use of plant-health products and other inputs and ensuring product quality and soil and water conservation; (vii) developing methods and instruments for improving product quality at all stages of production and marketing and, as regards the wine sector, also vinification; (viii) exploiting the potential of organic farming and protecting and promoting such farming as well as designations of origin, quality labels and geographical indications; (ix) promoting integrated production or other environmentally sound production methods; (x) with regard to the fruit and vegetables sector, laying down rules, as regards the production and marketing rules referred to in points 2 and 3 of Annex XVIa, which are stricter than Community or national rules; …’
6

Article 18 of the REACH Regulation, entitled ‘Registration of transported isolated intermediates’, provides as follows: ‘1. Any manufacturer or importer of a transported isolated intermediate in quantities of one tonne or more per year shall submit a registration to the Agency for the transported isolated intermediate. 2. A registration for a transported isolated intermediate shall include all the following information: (a) the identity of the manufacturer or importer as specified in Section 1 of Annex VI; (b) the identity of the intermediate as specified in Sections 2.1 to 2.3.4 of Annex VI; (c) the classification of the intermediate as specified in Section 4 of Annex VI; (d) any available existing information on physicochemical, human health or environmental properties of the intermediate. Where a full study report is available, a study summary shall be submitted; (e) a brief general description of the use, as specified in Section 3.5 of Annex VI; (f) information on risk management measures applied and recommended to the user in accordance with paragraph 4. ... 3. A registration for a transported isolated intermediate in quantities of more than 1000 tonnes per year per manufacturer or importer shall include the information specified in Annex VII in addition to the information required under paragraph 2. For the generation of this information, Article 13 shall apply. 4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall apply only to transported isolated intermediates if the manufacturer or importer confirms himself or states that he has received confirmation from the user that the synthesis of (an)other substance(s) from that intermediate takes place on other sites under the following strictly controlled conditions: (a) the substance is rigorously contained by technical means during its whole lifecycle including manufacture, purification, cleaning and maintenance of equipment, sampling, analysis, loading and unloading of equipment or vessels, waste disposal or purification and storage; (b) procedural and control technologies shall be used that minimise emission and any resulting exposure; (c) only properly trained and authorised personnel handle the substance; (d) in the case of cleaning and maintenance works, special procedures such as purging and washing are applied before the system is opened and entered; (e) in cases of accident and where waste is generated, procedural and/or control technologies are used to minimise emissions and the resulting exposure during purification or cleaning and maintenance procedures; (f) substance-handling procedures are well documented and strictly supervised by the site operator. If the conditions listed in the first subparagraph are not fulfilled, the registration shall include the information specified in Article 10.’
7

Article 5 of Regulation No 987/2009, that article being headed ‘Legal value of documents and supporting evidence issued in another Member State’, provides: ‘1. Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purposes of the application of the basic Regulation and of the implementing Regulation, and supporting evidence on the basis of which the documents have been issued, shall be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared to be invalid by the Member State in which they were issued. 2. Where there is doubt about the validity of a document or the accuracy of the facts on which the particulars contained therein are based, the institution of the Member State that receives the document shall ask the issuing institution for the necessary clarification and, where appropriate, the withdrawal of that document. The issuing institution shall reconsider the grounds for issuing the document and, if necessary, withdraw it. 3. Pursuant to paragraph 2, where there is doubt about the information provided by the persons concerned, the validity of a document or supporting evidence or the accuracy of the facts on which the particulars contained therein are based, the institution of the place of stay or residence shall, in so far as this is possible, at the request of the competent institution, proceed to the necessary verification of this information or document. 4. Where no agreement is reached between the institutions concerned, the matter may be brought before the Administrative Commission by the competent authorities no earlier than one month following the date on which the institution that received the document submitted its request. The Administrative Commission shall endeavour to reconcile the points of view within six months of the date on which the matter was brought before it.’
22

In those circumstances, the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is it possible for there to be an [IGP], for the purposes of Article 132(1)(f) of Directive [2006/112], when the members of the [IGP] are established in separate Member States of the European Union in which that provision of the directive has been transposed with different requirements which are not compatible? (2) Can a Member State restrict the right of a taxable person to apply the exemption provided for in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive [2006/112], when that taxable person has satisfied all the requirements for the application of the exemption in its Member State, but that provision of the directive has been transposed into the national law of the Member States of other members of the [IGP] with restrictions which limit the possibility for taxable persons of other Member States of applying in their own Member State the corresponding exemption from VAT? (3) Is it permissible to apply the exemption in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive [2006/112] to services in the Member State of the recipient of those services, which is a taxable person for [VAT], when the provider of the services, also a taxable person for [VAT], has applied in another Member State [VAT] to those services in accordance with general arrangements, that is, considering that [VAT] on those services was payable in the Member State of the recipient of those services, in accordance with Article 196 of Directive [2006/112]? (4) Must the term ‘[IGP]’, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(f) of Directive [2006/112], be taken to mean a separate legal person whose existence has to be proved through a specific agreement creating that [IGP]? If the reply to that question is that an [IGP] need not necessarily be taken to mean a separate entity, is an [IGP] to be regarded as a group of related undertakings in which, in the course of their usual economic activities, those undertakings provide each other with support services for carrying out their commercial activities, and may the existence of that [IGP] be proved through the contracts for services concluded or through documentation on transfer prices? (5) Can a Member State restrict the right of a taxable person to apply the [VAT] exemption in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive [2006/112], when that taxable person has applied an uplift to the transactions, as required under the legislation on direct taxation of the Member State where the taxable person is established? (6) Does the exemption in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive [2006/112] apply to services received from third countries? In other words, where a member of an [IGP], as referred to in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive [2006/112], provides, within that [IGP], services to other members of the [IGP], can that person be a taxable person from a third country?’