ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in principle, national legislation which lays down specific procedural requirements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in respect of actions brought by consumers who concluded loan contracts denominated in foreign currency, containing a term stipulating a differential between the exchange rate applicable to the advance of the loan and that applicable to its repayment and/or a clause stipulating an option of unilateral amendment, enabling the lender to increase interest, fees and costs, provided that a finding that terms in such an agreement were unfair would restore the legal and factual situation that the consumer would have been in had those unfair terms not existed.

While the Court has thus previously circumscribed, in a number of respects and taking account of the requirements set out in Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, the manner in which national courts must guarantee the protection of rights which consumers derive from that directive, the fact remains that, in principle, EU law does not harmonise the procedures which apply for the assessment of an allegedly unfair contractual term, and that those procedures are therefore a matter for the national legal order, provided that they are not less favourable than those governing similar situations subject to domestic law (principle of equivalence) and that they afford effective judicial protection, as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 April 2016, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C‑381/14 and C‑385/14, EU:C:2016:252, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).

(see paras 35, 55, operative part 1)
The Specific Mechanisms laid down in Chapter 2 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, in Chapter 1 of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and in Chapter 1 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, must be interpreted as authorising the holder of a supplementary protection certificate issued in a Member State other than the new Member States referred to in those Acts of Accession to oppose the parallel importation of a medicinal product from those new Member States in a situation where the legal systems of those States provided for the possibility of obtaining equivalent protection at the time when the application for the basic patent was published and/or the application for a supplementary protection certificate in the importing Member State was filed, but did not yet provide for such a possibility at the time when the application for a basic patent was filed, with the result that it was impossible for the patent holder to obtain an equivalent patent and a supplementary protection certificate in the exporting States.

As regards the exact date on which the level of protection in the importing Member State and that in the exporting States must be compared, it follows from the use of the word ‘filed’ in the provisions cited in paragraph 42 of this judgment that that date is the date on which the application for protection was lodged.

(See paras 43, 57, operative part 1)
4.

orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal proceedings, the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany relating to appeal proceedings and the costs incurred by Mr Dirk Andres, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH, relating to both the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal proceedings.
Pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission may by decision impose fines on undertakings and associations of undertakings where, either intentionally or negligently, they infringe Article 101 or 102 TFEU. The Commission’s power to impose fines where there is an infringement and to take decisions to that effect necessarily implies a power to make a finding that the infringement in question exists. In that regard, the Commission’s power to impose penalties under Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 is in no way affected by the fact that the conduct constituting the infringement has ceased. It follows that the Commission’s use of its power to impose a fine confers on it an implicit power to find the infringement, without its being required to justify a legitimate interest for making that finding, including where it relates to an infringement committed in the past.

According to the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, where the Commission finds that there is an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU, it may by decision require the undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned to bring such infringement to an end. The Commission’s use of its power to order the infringement to be brought to an end in accordance with that provision therefore necessarily implies a power to make a finding of that infringement and, accordingly, also does not require the Commission to establish a legitimate interest in doing so.

(see paras 57-59)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Subject matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Different wording of the complaints without amending or extending the subject matter of the dispute — Lawfulness

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Sites of Community importance — Identification — Creation of the national list of sites concerned — Conservation status assessed in relation to the entire European territory of the Member States falling within the scope of the Treaty — Insufficient identification — Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Directive 92/43, Arts 1(e) and (i), 2(1), 3(1), first and second paras, and 4(1) and Annexes II and III)
20

It should be recalled that, as the Court has repeatedly held in the context of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) that the distinction between benefits excluded from the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and those which fall within its scope is based essentially on the constituent elements of the particular benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions on which it is granted, and not on whether a benefit is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments of 16 July 1992, Hughes, C‑78/91, EU:C:1992:331, paragraph 14; of 20 January 2005, Noteboom, C‑101/04, EU:C:2005:51, paragraph 24; and of 24 October 2013, Lachheb, C‑177/12, EU:C:2013:689, paragraph 28). A benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit if it is granted to recipients, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, on the basis of a legally defined position and concerns one of the risks expressly listed in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments of 16 July 1992, Hughes, C‑78/91, EU:C:1992:331, paragraph 15; of 15 March 2001, Offermanns, C‑85/99, EU:C:2001:166, paragraph 28; and of 19 September 2013, Hliddal and Bornand, C‑216/12 and C‑217/12, EU:C:2013:568, paragraph 48).
8

Part III of Annex VII is entitled ‘Milk and milk products’. It provides: ‘1. The term “milk” shall mean exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom. However, the term “milk” may be used: (a) for milk treated without altering its composition or for milk the fat content of which is standardised …; (b) in association with a word or words to designate the type, grade, origin and/or intended use of such milk or to describe the physical treatment or the modification in composition to which it has been subjected, provided that the modification is restricted to an addition and/or withdrawal of natural milk constituents. 2. For the purposes of this Part, “milk products” means products derived exclusively from milk, on the understanding that substances necessary for their manufacture may be added provided that those substances are not used for the purpose of replacing, in whole or in part, any milk constituent. The following shall be reserved exclusively for milk products. (a) the following names used at all stages of marketing: (i) whey, (ii) cream, (iii) butter, (iv) buttermilk, … (viii) cheese, (ix) yogurt, … (b) names within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2000/13/EC or Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 actually used for milk products. 3. The term “milk” and the designations used for milk products may also be used in association with a word or words to designate composite products of which no part takes or is intended to take the place of any milk constituent and of which milk or a milk product is an essential part either in terms of quantity or for characterisation of the product. 4. As regards milk, the animal species from which the milk originates shall be stated, if it is not bovine. 5. The designations referred to in point II of this Annex may not be used for any product other than those referred to in that point. However, this provision shall not apply to the designation of products the exact nature of which is clear from traditional usage and/or when the designations are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product. 6. In respect of a product other than those described in points 1, 2 and 3 of this Part, no label, commercial document, publicity material or any form of advertising … or any form of presentation may be used which claims, implies or suggests that the product is a dairy product. …’
8

Article 5 of that directive provides: ‘1. Member States shall facilitate the use of radio frequencies under general authorisations. Where necessary, Member States may grant individual rights of use in order to: – avoid harmful interference, – ensure technical quality of service, – safeguard efficient use of spectrum; or – fulfil other objectives of general interest as defined by Member States in conformity with EU law. 2. Where it is necessary to grant individual rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers, Member States shall grant such rights, upon request, to any undertaking for the provision of networks or services under the general authorisation referred to in Article 3, subject to the provisions of Articles 6, 7 and 11(1)(c) of this Directive and any other rules ensuring the efficient use of those resources in accordance with [the Framework Directive]. Without prejudice to specific criteria and procedures adopted by Member States to grant rights of use of radio frequencies to providers of radio or television broadcast content services with a view to pursuing general interest objectives in conformity with [EU] law, the rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers shall be granted through open, objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate procedures, and, in the case of radio frequencies, in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of [the Framework Directive]. An exception to the requirement of open procedures may apply in cases where the granting of individual rights of use of radio frequencies to the providers of radio or television broadcast content services is necessary to achieve a general interest objective as defined by Member States in conformity with [EU] law. … 5. Member States shall not limit the number of rights of use to be granted except where this is necessary to ensure the efficient use of radio frequencies in accordance with Article 7. 6. Competent national authorities shall ensure that radio frequencies are efficiently and effectively used in accordance with Articles 8(2) and 9(2) of [the Framework Directive]. They shall ensure competition is not distorted by any transfer or accumulation of rights of use of radio frequencies. For such purposes, Member States may take appropriate measures such as mandating the sale or the lease of rights to use radio frequencies.’
17

In those circumstances, the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (the Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does the legal relationship between a company that has acquired the right to a debt under an assignment of claim agreement and a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement, where the company carries out acts of debt recovery, fall within the scope of [the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive]? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the term ‘product’ used in Article 2(c) of the [Unfair Commercial Practices Directive] cover acts performed in exercising the right to the debt acquired under the assignment of claim agreement in the context of debt recovery from a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement entered into with the original creditor? (3) Does the legal relationship between a company that has acquired the right to a debt under an assignment of claim agreement and a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement and has already been established by a final judicial decision and passed to the bailiff for enforcement, where the company is carrying out parallel acts of debt recovery, fall within the scope of the [Unfair Commercial Practices Directive]? (4) If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does the term ‘product’ used in Article 2(c) of the [Unfair Commercial Practices Directive] cover acts performed in exercising the right to the debt acquired under the assignment of claim agreement in the context of debt recovery from a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement entered into with the original creditor and has been established by a final judicial decision and passed to the bailiff for enforcement?’
32

In those circumstances, the cour du travail de Mons (Mons Higher Labour Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Taking into account: – the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings laid down in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by [successive conventions on the accession of new Member States to that convention] and the [Brussels I Regulation] (see, in particular, the judgment of 19 July 2012, Mahamdia, C‑154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraphs 44 and 46). – the particular features of the European air navigation sector, in which air crews working for airlines whose registered office is in one of the Member States of the European Union fly over, on a daily basis, the territory of the European Union, departing from a home base that may, as in the present case, be located in another Member State, – the particular circumstances of the present case as described in the grounds of the … order for reference, – the criterion derived from the concept of “home base” (as defined in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91), which is used in Regulation No 883/2004 to determine which social security legislation applies, with effect from 28 June 2012, to airline flight crews and cabin crews, – the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the terms of the judgments cited in the grounds of the present order for reference, may the concept of the “place where the employee habitually carries out his work” referred to in Article 19(2) of the [Brussels I Regulation] be interpreted as being comparable to that of “home base”, defined in Annex III to [Regulation No 3922/91] as “the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned”, for the purpose of determining the Contracting State (and thus the jurisdiction) on whose territory an employee habitually carries out his work where the employee is employed as a member of the air crew of an airline, subject to the laws of a Member State of the European Union, that transports passengers internationally by air throughout the territory of the European Union, since that criterion of connection, based on the “home base”, in the sense of “the effective centre of the work relationship”, inasmuch as the employee systematically begins and ends his working day at that place, organises his daily work there and, throughout the period of his contractual relationship maintains his residence there, is the criterion which both indicates the closest connection with a Contracting State and ensures the most satisfactory protection of the weaker party in the contractual relationship?’
13

It is clear from the request for a preliminary ruling that for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings the Explanatory Notes to the CN, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 March 2015 (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1) are relevant. The Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to subheading 6212 20 00 is worded as follows: ‘Girdles and panty girdles This subheading covers panty girdles, whether or not knitted or crocheted, cut in the form of briefs with or without legs or high-waisted briefs with or without legs. They must be characteristic of the variety. (a) hug the waist and hips and have side panels of 8 cm or higher (measured from the leg to the top); (b) have vertical elasticity and restricted horizontal elasticity. Reinforcements or a stomach insert, even with applied lace, ribbons, trimmings or the like, are acceptable if the elasticity remains vertical; (c) be composed of the following textile materials: – blends of cotton with an elastomer yarn content of at least 15%, or – blends of man-made fibres with an elastomer yarn content of at least 10%, or – blends of cotton (not more than 50%) and a high proportion of man-made fibres with an elastomer yarn content of at least 10%.’
2

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p.93) (‘the basic regulation’), entitled ‘Undertakings’, states: ‘1. Upon condition that a provisional affirmative determination of subsidisation and injury has been made, the Commission may accept satisfactory voluntary undertakings offers under which: (a) the country of origin and/or export agrees to eliminate or limit the subsidy or take other measures concerning its effects; or (b) any exporter undertakes to revise its prices or to cease exports to the area in question as long as such exports benefit from countervailable subsidies, so that the Commission, after specific consultation of the Advisory Committee, is satisfied that the injurious effect of the subsidies is thereby eliminated. In such a case and as long as such undertakings are in force, the provisional duties imposed by the Commission in accordance with Article 12(3) and the definitive duties imposed by the Council in accordance with Article 15(1) shall not apply to the relevant imports of the product concerned manufactured by the companies referred to in the Commission decision accepting undertakings and in any subsequent amendment of such decision. Price increases under such undertakings shall not be higher than is necessary to offset the amount of countervailable subsidies, and should be less than the amount of countervailable subsidies if such increases would be adequate to remove the injury to the Community industry. … 9. In case of breach or withdrawal of undertakings by any party to the undertaking, or in case of withdrawal of acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission, the acceptance of the undertaking shall, after consultation, be withdrawn by Commission Decision or Commission Regulation, as appropriate, and the provisional duty which has been imposed by the Commission in accordance with Article 12 or the definitive duty which has been imposed by the Council in accordance with Article 15(1), shall apply, provided that the exporter concerned, or the country of origin and/or export has, except in the case of withdrawal of the undertaking by the exporter or such country, been given an opportunity to comment. …’
11

In those circumstances, the Efeteio Athinon (Court of Appeal, Athens, Greece) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) What is the nature of the acts of the [Commission] when it exercises its powers pursuant to Regulations No 2052/88, No 4253/88 and No 4256/88 and, more specifically, are those acts of the Commission acts of public law and do they give rise to administrative disputes as to the substance in any event, in particular where the subject matter of the attachment by the [Commission] of assets held by a third party is a private debt, whereas the initial debt for whose satisfaction enforcement is proceeded with derives from a legal relationship governed by public law which has arisen from the foregoing acts of the [Commission], or are they acts of private law and do they give rise to private disputes? (2) Having regard to the fact that, under Article 299 TFEU, enforcement of acts of the [Commission] which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than Member States is to be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which enforcement is proceeded with and that, under that article, the courts of the country concerned are to have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner, how is the jurisdiction of the national courts over disputes which arise from such enforcement determined, when under national law those disputes are administrative disputes as to the substance, that is to say, when the underlying relationship is one of public law? (3) In the case of enforcement of acts of the [Commission] which are adopted pursuant to Regulations No 2052/88, No 4253/88 and No 4256/88 and impose a pecuniary obligation on a person other than Member States, is the capacity to be made a defendant that is possessed by the person liable assessed on the basis of national law or of EU law? (4) When the person liable to discharge a pecuniary obligation stemming from an act of the [Commission] adopted pursuant to Regulations No 2052/88, No 4253/88 and No 4256/88 is a community undertaking, which subsequently was wound up, does the community which owns that undertaking owe an obligation to discharge that pecuniary obligation to the [Commission] under the foregoing regulations?’