ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6

Article 28 of Directive 2001/83 provides as follows: ‘1. With a view to the granting of a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in more than one Member State, an applicant shall submit an application based on an identical dossier in these Member States. The dossier shall contain the information and documents referred to in Articles 8, 10, 10a, 10b, 10c and 11. The documents submitted shall include a list of Member States concerned by the application. The applicant shall request one Member State to act as “reference Member State” and to prepare an assessment report on the medicinal product in accordance with paragraphs 2 or 3. 2. Where the medicinal product has already received a marketing authorisation at the time of application, the concerned Member States shall recognise the marketing authorisation granted by the reference Member State. To this end, the marketing authorisation holder shall request the reference Member State either to prepare an assessment report on the medicinal product or, if necessary, to update any existing assessment report. The reference Member State shall prepare or update the assessment report within 90 days of receipt of a valid application. The assessment report together with the approved summary of product characteristics, labelling and package leaflet shall be sent to the concerned Member States and to the applicant. 3. In cases where the medicinal product has not received a marketing authorisation at the time of application, the applicant shall request the reference Member State to prepare a draft assessment report, a draft summary of product characteristics and a draft of the labelling and package leaflet. The reference Member State shall prepare these draft documents within 120 days of receipt of a valid application and shall send them to the concerned Member States and to the applicant. 4. Within 90 days of receipt of the documents referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member States concerned shall approve the assessment report, the summary of product characteristics, the labelling and the package leaflet and inform the reference Member State accordingly. The reference Member State shall record the agreement of all parties, close the procedure and inform the applicant accordingly. 5. Each Member State in which an application has been submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall adopt a decision in conformity with the approved assessment report, the summary of product characteristics and the labelling and package leaflet as approved, within 30 days after acknowledgement of the agreement.’
34

As regards, fourth, the judgment of 6 May 2010, Commission v France (C‑94/09, EU:C:2010:253), that judgment concerns the compatibility, with Directive 2006/112, of national legislation providing for a selective application of the reduced rate of VAT by a Member State to the transportation of corpses by undertaker’s vehicles, separately from the other services provided by that firm and the supply of goods related thereto. In order to determine whether the selective application of a reduced rate of VAT complied with Articles 96 to 99(1) of Directive 2006/112, the Court held that the question whether a transaction including several elements must be considered to be a single supply was not decisive for the purpose of the exercise by the Member States of the discretion left to them by Directive 2006/112 as regards the application of the reduced rate of VAT (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 May 2010, Commission v France, C‑94/09, EU:C:2010:253, paragraph 33). Those were the circumstances in which the Court held that it was not necessary to examine whether or not the supply of services by undertakers was to be regarded as a single transaction, but that it was, however, necessary to ascertain whether the transportation of corpses by vehicles constituted a concrete and specific aspect of that category of supply, as set out in Annex III, point 16, to Directive 2006/112, and, if so, to examine whether or not the application of that rate undermines the principle of fiscal neutrality (judgment of 6 May 2010, Commission v France, C‑94/09, EU:C:2010:253, paragraph 34).
6

Legislative Decree No 374 of 8 November 1990 reorganising the customs institutions and revising the procedures for assessment and review (GURI No 291 of 14 December 1990; ordinary supplement No 80) (‘Legislative Decree No 374/1990’), provides, in Article 11, entitled ‘Revision of assessments: competence and powers of [customs] offices’, in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings: ‘(1) The customs office may review an assessment which has become final even if the goods which were the subject of it have been left at the disposal of the trader or if they have already left the customs territory. The review shall be carried out either by the customs office of its own motion or following an application made by the trader concerned … (2) For the purposes of the review of the assessment, the customs office may invite the traders … to appear in person or through a representative, or to provide, within the abovementioned time limit, information and documents … concerning the goods which were the subject of the customs operations. … … (5) Where the review, whether carried out on the office’s own initiative or on the application of a party, reveals … errors relating to the factors on which the assessment was based, the office shall make the corresponding correction and shall give the trader concerned appropriate notice thereof. … (5a) The statement of grounds for the measure shall set out the factual circumstances as well as the legal grounds which led to its adoption. … In the event of a failure to state the grounds for the assessment in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph, the assessment shall be deemed void. … (7) The amendment may be challenged by the trader within 30 days of its being notified of the assessment. At the time any such challenge is made, a report shall be drawn up in relation thereto, in order that the administrative procedures for the resolution of disputes provided for in Article 66 et seq. of the Consolidated Law on Customs, approved by Decree of the President of the Republic No 43 of 23 January 1973, may be initiated. (8) Once the amendment has become final, the office shall recover the additional duties owed by the trader or set in motion, on its own initiative, the procedure for reimbursement of overpayments. Where appropriate, amendment of the assessment shall include charges of infringements arising from false declarations or more serious infringements which may have been detected. …’
7

Article 15 of Directive 2006/123, entitled ‘Requirements to be evaluated’, is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States shall examine whether, under their legal system, any of the requirements listed in paragraph 2 are imposed and shall ensure that any such requirements are compatible with the conditions laid down in paragraph 3. Member States shall adapt their laws, regulations or administrative provisions so as to make them compatible with those conditions. 2. Member States shall examine whether their legal system makes access to a service activity or the exercise of it subject to compliance with any of the following non-discriminatory requirements: … (c) requirements which relate to the shareholding of a company; (d) requirements, other than those concerning matters covered by Directive 2005/36/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22)] or provided for in other Community instruments, which reserve access to the service activity in question to particular providers by virtue of the specific nature of the activity; … 3. Member States shall verify that the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 satisfy the following conditions: (a) non-discrimination: requirements must be neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory according to nationality nor, with regard to companies, according to the location of the registered office; (b) necessity: requirements must be justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest; (c) proportionality: requirements must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued; they must not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective and it must not be possible to replace those requirements with other, less restrictive, measures which attain the same result. …’
8

Article 187a of the TUF, inserted into that law by the Law of 18 April 2005 referred to in the above paragraph, is entitled ‘Misuses of insider information’. It is worded as follows: ‘(1) Without prejudice to the criminal penalties which apply where the action constitutes a criminal offence, an administrative fine of between EUR 100000 and EUR 15 million shall be imposed on any person who, being in possession of inside information by virtue of his membership of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of an issuer, his holding in the capital of an issuer or the exercise of his employment, profession or duties, including public duties, or his position: (a) buys, sells or carries out other transactions involving, directly or indirectly, for his own account or on behalf of a third party, financial instruments using such information; (b) discloses such information to others outside the normal exercise of his employment, profession, duties or position; (c) recommends or induces others, on the basis of such information, to carry out any of the transactions referred to in subparagraph (a). (2) The penalty referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply to any person who, being in possession of inside information by virtue of the preparation or carrying out of criminal activities, carries out any of the actions referred to in paragraph 1. … (4) The penalty referred to in paragraph 1 shall also apply to any person who, being in possession of inside information and being aware of, or able, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, to learn of the privileged nature of that information, carries out any of the actions referred to therein. (5) The administrative fines provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 shall be increased by up to three times its amount or up to an amount 10 times greater than the proceeds or profit obtained from the offence, where the fine is insufficient, even if the maximum amount has been applied, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the qualities of the offender and the size of the proceeds or profit obtained. …’
15

That court examined, inter alia, the instructions to passengers published on Finnair’s website, which contained a variety of information on the procedure for submitting a notice of complaint and on actually making a written complaint. The court found that a declaration of loss could be made by telephone, whereas a written complaint had to be made using a particular form to be submitted within seven days after receipt of the baggage. The Helsingin hovioikeus (Court of Appeal, Helsinki) took the view that the instructions on Finnair’s website were ‘not sufficiently clear and unambiguous for a passenger as a consumer’. According to that court, since the instructions did not mention for what purpose the declaration of loss had to be made, the passenger, as a consumer, could legitimately believe that a complaint made over the telephone and registered by an employee of the company would also satisfy the requirements of a formal written complaint. In the present case, it was found that Ms Mäkelä-Dermedesiotis had given notice to Finnair setting out the loss in precise terms and a written certificate of the lodging of a declaration of loss issued by Finnair proved that her complaint had been recorded timeously in Finnair’s information system. In addition, having received that declaration of loss, Finnair did not inform Ms Mäkelä-Dermedesiotis that it considered such a declaration insufficient for the bringing of an action seeking to have it held liable as an air carrier and it did not specify that she also needed to submit a written complaint.
8

Article 111(1) and (2) of that regulation states: ‘(1) A farmer keeping suckler cows on his holding may qualify, on application, for a premium for maintaining suckler cows (‘suckler-cow premium’). It shall be granted in the form of an annual premium per calendar year and per farmer within the limits of individual ceilings. (2) The suckler-cow premium shall be granted to any farmer: (a) not supplying milk or milk products from his farm for 12 months from the day on which the application is lodged. The supply of milk or milk products directly from the holding to the consumer shall not, however, prevent the premium being granted; (b) supplying milk or milk products the total individual quota of which, as referred to in Article 67 of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 [of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1)], does not exceed 120000 kg. However, Member States may decide, on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria which they determine, to change or waive the quantitative limit, provided that the farmer keeps, for at least six consecutive months from the day on which the application is lodged, a number of suckler cows not less than 60% and of heifers not exceeding 40% of the number for which the premium was requested. For the purposes of determining the number of eligible animals under points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph, whether cows belong to a suckler herd or to a dairy herd shall be established on the basis of the beneficiary's individual quota for milk available on the holding on 31 March of the calendar year concerned, expressed in tonnes and the average milk yield. ...’
9

Paragraph 48 of that law provides: ‘1. The Hungarian court, when delivering its decision, shall be bound by the findings of fact of the foreign court. 2. In the course of the procedure before it, the Hungarian court shall determine the legal consequences deriving from the conviction under Hungarian law. If the sentence or measure imposed by the judgment of the foreign court is not fully compatible with Hungarian law, the Hungarian court shall make a finding in its decision as to the sentence or measure applicable under Hungarian law, so that it corresponds as closely as possible to the sentence or measure imposed by the foreign court, and, where an application is made for enforcement, shall accordingly rule on the enforcement of the sentence or measure. 3. When determining the applicable sentence or measure, reference shall be made to the law that applied at the time the offence was committed. If, under the Hungarian law applicable at the time the sentence or applicable measure is determined, the act in question no longer constitutes a criminal offence or is subject to a lesser punishment, that later law shall apply. … 5. If the custodial sentence imposed by the foreign court is not compatible with Hungarian law with respect to the means of enforcing it or its duration, the Hungarian court shall determine the sentence and its duration in accordance with Hungarian law, including the rules governing the means of enforcement of the sentence and the grant of conditional release, taking account of the sentences laid down in the Criminal Code for the offence resulting from the findings of fact on which the judgment was based as well as the rules on the determination of sentences. If the duration of the custodial sentence imposed by the foreign court is less than the corresponding duration under Hungarian law, taking into account also the rules of the Criminal Code on the mitigation of sentences, the duration of the custodial sentence handed down by the Hungarian court shall be the same as that imposed by the foreign court. The duration of the sentence imposed by the Hungarian court may not be greater than that of the sentence imposed by the foreign court. … 7. The Hungarian court shall inform the criminal records service of the recognition of the validity of the foreign judgment. …’
6

First, as regards the identification of the sites and notification of these to the Commission, Article 4(1) of the directive provides: ‘On the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 1) and relevant scientific information, each Member State shall propose a list of sites indicating which natural habitat types in Annex I and which species in Annex II that are native to its territory the sites host. For animal species ranging over wide areas these sites shall correspond to the places within the natural range of such species which present the physical or biological factors essential to their life and reproduction. For aquatic species which range over wide areas, such sites will be proposed only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction. Where appropriate, Member States shall propose adaptation of the list in the light of the results of the surveillance referred to in Article 11. The list shall be transmitted to the Commission, within three years of the notification of this Directive, together with information on each site. That information shall include a map of the site, its name, location, extent and the data resulting from application of the criteria specified in Annex III (Stage 1) provided in a format established by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21.’
18

In those circumstances, the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the principle of transparency, which is clearly set out in Article 15 of the TFEU, with its binding general objective, if construed as meaning that that principle may be regulated by the sources of law or equivalent provided for in Article 15(3), the content of which could suggest an excessively broad discretion that lacks foundation in a higher source of European law as regards the need to predetermine minimum principles from which there is no derogation, not at variance with the restrictive objective in European legislation concerning the supervision of credit institutions, to such a degree that the principle of transparency itself is rendered ineffective, including in circumstances in which the interest in access is founded on vital interests of the applicant that are clearly comparable to the interests that constitute exceptions, in his favour, to the restrictions in the sector? (2) As a result of this, must Article 22(2) and Article 27(1) of Regulation No 1024/2013 be interpreted not as non-exceptional cases in which derogations from the non-accessibility of documents are permitted, but as provisions to be interpreted in the light of the broader objectives of Article 15 of the TFEU and, as such, founded on a general legislative principle of European law according to which access cannot be restricted, following a reasonable and proportionate balancing of the needs of the credit institutions with the fundamental interests of a saver caught up in a case of burden sharing, depending on the relevant circumstances established by a supervisory authority with organisational tasks and responsibilities in the sector comparable to those of the ECB? (3) Consequently, must not Article 53 of Directive 2013/36 and the provisions of national law that reflect it, be reconciled with the remaining rules and principles of European law, as set out in the first question, to the effect that access may be granted, where requested after the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, including where the request for access is not made exclusively in the context of civil or commercial proceedings that have actually been brought to protect the financial interests that have been prejudiced because the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, but also where the request is addressed to a judicial body authorised by the national State to safeguard the right of access and transparency, specifically in order to determine the actual possibility of bringing such civil or commercial proceedings, before they are in fact instituted, with a view to protecting in full the rights of defence and the right to bring proceedings, with specific reference to the request of a saver who has already suffered the effects of burden sharing in connection with the winding up of the credit institution with which he deposited his savings?’
Case C‑66/17

Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś

v

DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — Scope — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Enforcement orders capable of being certified as European Enforcement Orders — Decision on the amount of costs related to the court proceedings in a judgment not concerning an uncontested claim — Excluded)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 14 December 2017

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Creation of a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Regulation No 805/2004 — Enforcement orders capable of being certified — An enforceable decision on the amount of costs related to court proceedings, contained in a judgment which does not relate to an uncontested claim — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 805/2004, Arts 4(1) and 7)

Article 4(1) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that an enforceable decision on the amount of costs related to court proceedings, contained in a judgment which does not relate to an uncontested claim, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

The use of the word ‘also’ in the wording of Article 7 of the regulation indicates that an ‘enforceable decision on the amount of costs related to the court proceedings’ is to be certified as a European Enforcement Order only in the case where the actual judgment, in keeping with the purpose of the regulation, relates to an uncontested claim.

(see paras 30, 35, operative part)