ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
8.

Article 13 of the basic regulation, entitled ‘Circumvention’, provides: ‘1. Anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to this Regulation may be extended to imports from third countries, of the like product, whether slightly modified or not, or to imports of the slightly modified like product from the country subject to measures, or parts thereof, when circumvention of the measures in force is taking place. Anti-dumping duties not exceeding the residual anti-dumping duty imposed in accordance with Article 9(5) may be extended to imports from companies benefiting from individual duties in the countries subject to measures when circumvention of the measures in force is taking place. Circumvention shall be defined as a change in the pattern of trade between third countries and the Community or between individual companies in the country subject to measures and the Community, which stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty, and where there is evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty are being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product, and where there is evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2. … 3. Investigations shall be initiated pursuant to this Article on the initiative of the Commission or at the request of a Member State or any interested party on the basis of sufficient evidence regarding the factors set out in paragraph 1. Initiations shall be made, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by Commission Regulation which may also instruct the customs authorities to make imports subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) or to request guarantees. Investigations shall be carried out by the Commission, which may be assisted by customs authorities and shall be concluded within nine months. When the facts as finally ascertained justify the extension of measures, this shall be done by the Council, acting on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation of the Advisory Committee. The proposal shall be adopted by the Council unless it decides by a simple majority to reject the proposal, within a period of one month after its submission by the Commission. The extension shall take effect from the date on which registration was imposed pursuant to Article 14(5) or on which guarantees were requested. The relevant procedural provisions of this Regulation with regard to initiations and the conduct of investigations shall apply pursuant to this Article. …’
5.

Based on that judgment, on 14 October 2014 Pebros Servizi Srl made an application to the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court of Bologna) seeking a European Enforcement Order under Regulation No 805/2004, so that it could initiate enforcement proceedings to recover the debt. Being unsure of the applicability of the regulation since, under Italian law, judgment in default of appearance (‘in contumacia’) does not imply any admission, the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court of Bologna) decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘In the case of a judgment in default (of appearance) given against the defendant in default of appearance/failing to appear without, moreover, there being any express acknowledgement of the law by the defendant in default/failing to appear, is it for national law to decide whether such procedural conduct amounts to non-contestation, for the purposes of Regulation No 805/2004, which could possibly, under national law, negate the uncontested nature of the claim or does a judgment in default of appearance constitute, by reason of its very nature alone, on the basis of EU law, non-contestation, with the result that Regulation No 805/2004 applies, irrespective of the assessment of the national court?’
27.

Article 7 of the directive, entitled ‘Grid system issues’, provided as follows: ‘1. Without prejudice to the maintenance of the reliability and safety of the grid, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that transmission system operators and distribution system operators in their territory guarantee the transmission and distribution of [green electricity]. They may also provide for priority access to the grid system of [green electricity]. When dispatching generating installations, transmission system operators shall give priority to generating installations using renewable energy sources in so far as the operation of the national electricity system permits. 2. Member States shall put into place a legal framework or require transmission system operators and distribution system operators to set up and publish their standard rules relating to the bearing of costs of technical adaptations, such as grid connections and grid reinforcements, which are necessary in order to integrate new producers feeding [green electricity] into the interconnected grid. These rules shall be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking particular account of all the costs and benefits associated with the connection of these producers to the grid. The rules may provide for different types of connection. 3. Where appropriate, Member States may require transmission system operators and distribution system operators to bear, in full or in part, the costs referred to in paragraph 2. ... 6. Member States shall ensure that the charging of transmission and distribution fees does not discriminate against [green electricity], including in particular electricity from renewable energy sources produced in peripheral regions, such as island regions and regions of low population density. Where appropriate, Member States shall put in place a legal framework or require transmission system operators and distribution system operators to ensure that fees charged for the transmission and distribution of electricity from plants using renewable energy sources reflect realisable cost benefits resulting from the plant’s connection to the network. Such cost benefits could arise from the direct use of the low-voltage grid. ...’
10.

Article 109 of the Community trade mark Regulation provides that: ‘1. Where actions for infringement involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, one seised on the basis of a Community trade mark and the other seised on the basis of a national trade mark: (a) the court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion decline jurisdiction in favour of that court where the trade marks concerned are identical and valid for identical goods or services. The court which would be required to decline jurisdiction may stay its proceedings if the jurisdiction of the other court is contested; (b) the court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings where the trade marks concerned are identical and valid for similar goods or services and where the trade marks concerned are similar and valid for identical or similar goods or services. 2. The court hearing an action for infringement on the basis of a Community trade mark shall reject the action if a final judgment on the merits has been given on the same cause of action and between the same parties on the basis of an identical national trade mark valid for identical goods or services. 3. The court hearing an action for infringement on the basis of a national trade mark shall reject the action if a final judgment on the merits has been given on the same cause of action and between the same parties on the basis of an identical Community trade mark valid for identical goods or services.’
12.

Article 22 of Directive 2008/50 lays down a procedure under which Member States may, under certain conditions, apply for a temporary exemption inter alia from the obligation to comply with the limit values for PM10 until 11 June 2011: ‘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. … 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.’
47.

I therefore propose that the question referred by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland) be answered as follows: The transfer of ownership of a plot of land by the taxable person for the purposes of VAT to the tax creditor, resulting in the discharge of the tax debt by operation of law, does not constitute a transaction that is subject to VAT within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the VAT Directive. In that respect, the taxable person is not acting as such. However, a deduction of input tax made in relation to the transferred property must be corrected in accordance with Article 16 of the VAT Directive. The prerequisite is that the possibility of settling taxes by means of benefits in kind in lieu of payment is available only to the tax debtor and is only executed by the public-law contract provided for. In that respect, the parties must not have any influence on the ‘purchase price’. On the contrary, the latter must be determined according to objective valuation standards, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
6.

Under Article 3 of Directive 2010/64 (‘Right to translation of essential documents’): ‘1. Member States shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are, within a reasonable period of time, provided with a written translation of all documents which are essential to ensure that they are able to exercise their right of defence and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. 2. Essential documents shall include any decision depriving a person of his liberty, any charge or indictment, and any judgment. 3. The competent authorities shall, in any given case, decide whether any other document is essential. Suspected or accused persons or their legal counsel may submit a reasoned request to that effect. 4. There shall be no requirement to translate passages of essential documents which are not relevant for the purposes of enabling suspected or accused persons to have knowledge of the case against them. 5. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with procedures in national law, suspected or accused persons have the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for the translation of documents or passages thereof and, when a translation has been provided, the possibility to complain that the quality of the translation is not sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. … 9. Translation provided under this Article shall be of a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that suspected or accused persons have knowledge of the case against them and are able to exercise their right of defence.’
7.

Article 147 of the VAT Directive provides: ‘1. Where the supply of goods referred to in point (b) of Article 146(1) relates to goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the exemption shall apply only if the following conditions are met: (a) the traveller is not established within the Community; (b) the goods are transported out of the Community before the end of the third month following that in which the supply takes place; (c) the total value of the supply, including VAT, is more than EUR 175 or the equivalent in national currency, fixed annually by applying the conversion rate obtaining on the first working day of October with effect from 1 January of the following year. However, Member States may exempt a supply with a total value of less than the amount specified in point (c) of the first subparagraph. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, “a traveller who is not established within the Community” shall mean a traveller whose permanent address or habitual residence is not located within the Community. In that case “permanent address or habitual residence” means the place entered as such in a passport, identity card or other document recognised as an identity document by the Member State within whose territory the supply takes place.’
65.

In that regard, it should be recalled that, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, the binding nature of a directive, which constitutes the basis for the possibility of relying on it, exists only in relation to ‘each Member State to which it is addressed’. ( 25 ) It follows, according to settled case-law, that a directive cannot, of itself, impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be relied upon as such against such an individual before a national court. ( 26 ) According to the Court, the effect of extending the possibility of relying on directives that are not transposed to the sphere of relations between individuals would be to recognise a power invested in the European Union to enact obligations for individuals with immediate effect, whereas it has competence to do so only where it is empowered to adopt regulations. ( 27 ) It follows from that case-law that, even if an individual comes within the group of persons covered by a directive, the provisions of that directive may not be relied on as such against that individual before the national courts. ( 28 ) The provisions of a directive cannot, therefore, be recognised as having a downwards vertical direct effect, in so far as a Member State cannot rely, as against individuals, on its own failure to comply with EU law. ( 29 )
5.

Article 2 of Regulation No 3950/92 provides: ‘1. The levy shall be payable on all quantities of milk or milk equivalent marketed during the 12-month period in question in excess of the relevant quantity referred to in Article 3. It shall be shared between the producers who contributed to the overrun. In accordance with a decision of the Member State, the contribution of producers towards the levy payable shall be established, after the unused reference quantities have been reallocated or not, either at the level of the purchaser, in the light of the overrun remaining after unused reference quantities have been allocated in proportion to the reference quantities of each producer, or at national level, in the light of the overrun in the reference quantity of each individual producer. 2. As regards deliveries, before a date and in accordance with detailed rules to be laid down, the purchaser liable for the levy shall pay to the competent body of the Member State the amount payable, which he shall deduct from the price of milk paid to producers who owe the levy or, failing this, collect by any appropriate means. … Where quantities delivered by a producer exceed his reference quantity, the purchaser shall be authorised, by way of an advance on the levy payable, in accordance with detailed rules laid down by the Member State, to deduct an amount from the price of the milk in respect of any delivery by that producer in excess of his reference quantity. … 4. Where the levy is payable and the amount collected is greater than that levy, the Member State may use the excess to finance the measures referred to in the first indent of Article 8 and/or redistribute it to producers who fall within priority categories established by the Member State on the basis of objective criteria to be determined or who are affected by an exceptional situation resulting from a national provision unconnected with this scheme.’
7.

According to the provisions of the Hotărârea Guvernului României No 44/2004 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice de aplicare a Legii No 571/2003 privind Codul fiscal (Government Regulation No 44/2004 on the approval of rules implementing Law No 571/2003 establishing the Tax Code) of 22 January 2004: ‘Article 175 5. (1) Energy products other than those referred to in Article 175(3) [of the Law on the Tax Code] shall be subject to excise duty when: (a) the products are manufactured for use as heating fuel or motor fuel; (b) the products are offered for sale as heating fuel or motor fuel; (c) the products are used as heating fuel or motor fuel. (2) Any economic operator in one of the situations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be required, before the production, offering for sale or use of energy products, to submit a request to the Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Comisia cu atribuții în autorizarea antrepozitelor fiscale [Ministry of Public Finances — Office for the issue of tax warehouse authorisation, Romania] for classification of those products for the purposes of excise duty. That request must be accompanied by the test report for the relevant product, issued by a recognised laboratory, by the tariff classification of the product by the Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor [National Customs Authority, Romania] and by the opinion from the Ministerul Economiei și Comerţului [Ministry of the Economy and Trade, Romania] on the equivalence of that product to an equivalent product for which excise duties have been determined. … (4) As regards products, … for which the economic operator has failed to fulfil the obligations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the excise duty payable in the case of motor fuel shall correspond to the tax payable for leaded petrol and, in the case of heating fuel, the excise duty payable is that determined for gas oil.’
11.

Article 5 of that directive provides: ‘1. Member States shall determine whether, in order to exercise the right to family reunification, an application for entry and residence shall be submitted to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned either by the sponsor or by the family member or members. 2. The application shall be accompanied by documentary evidence of the family relationship and of compliance with the conditions laid down in Articles 4 and 6 and, where applicable, Articles 7 and 8, as well as certified copies of family member(s)’ travel documents. If appropriate, in order to obtain evidence that a family relationship exists, Member States may carry out interviews with the sponsor and his/her family members and conduct other investigations that are found to be necessary. … 4. The competent authorities of the Member State shall give the person, who has submitted the application, written notification of the decision as soon as possible and in any event no later than nine months from the date on which the application was lodged. In exceptional circumstances linked to the complexity of the examination of the application, the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph may be extended. Reasons shall be given for the decision rejecting the application. Any consequences of no decision being taken by the end of the period provided for in the first subparagraph shall be determined by the national legislation of the relevant Member State. 5. When examining an application, the Member States shall have due regard to the best interests of minor children.’
8.

Under Article 4f of Directive 2005/36, introduced by Directive 2013/55 and entitled ‘Partial access’: ‘1. The competent authority of the host Member State shall grant partial access, on a case-by-case basis, to a professional activity in its territory only when all the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the professional is fully qualified to exercise in the home Member State the professional activity for which partial access is sought in the host Member State; (b) differences between the professional activity legally exercised in the home Member State and the regulated profession in the host Member State as such are so large that the application of compensation measures would amount to requiring the applicant to complete the full programme of education and training required in the host Member State to have access to the full regulated profession in the host Member State; (c) the professional activity can objectively be separated from other activities falling under the regulated profession in the host Member State. For the purpose of point (c), the competent authority of the host Member State shall take into account whether the professional activity can be pursued autonomously in the home Member State. 2. Partial access may be rejected if such rejection is justified by overriding reasons of general interest, suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. 3. Applications for the purpose of establishment in a host Member State shall be examined in accordance with Chapters I and IV of Title III. 4. Applications for the purpose of providing temporary and occasional services in the host Member State concerning professional activities that have public health or safety implications shall be examined in accordance with Title II. 5. By derogation from the sixth subparagraph of Article 7(4) and Article 52(1), the professional activity shall be exercised under the professional title of the home Member State once partial access has been granted. The host Member State may require use of that professional title in the languages of the host Member State. Professionals benefiting from partial access shall clearly indicate to the service recipients the scope of their professional activities. 6. This Article shall not apply to professionals benefiting from automatic recognition of their professional qualifications under Chapters II, III and IIIa of Title III.’