ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
23

In those circumstances, the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Having regard to the principle of proportionality, is Article 45 or 49 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the competent authority of a host Member State from granting, on the basis of the national legislation, a person the right to pursue the profession of doctor for a limited period of three years and subject to the restriction that that person may practise only under the direction and supervision of a licensed doctor and must complete three years of special training in general medical practice during that same period in order to obtain authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State, taking account of the fact that: (a) the person has obtained an undergraduate degree in medicine in the home Member State but, when applying for recognition of that professional qualification in the host Member State, he or she was unable to provide a certificate attesting to the completion of a professional traineeship of one year’s duration, which is required as a further condition for obtaining the professional qualification in the home Member State; (b) for the purposes of Article 55a of [Directive 2005/36,] in the host Member State, the person has been offered, as a preferential alternative, which was declined by him or her, the possibility of carrying out in the host Member State, for a period of three years, a professional traineeship that is in accordance with the guidelines of the home Member State and applying to the competent authority of the home Member State for recognition of that traineeship in order subsequently to be able to reapply in the host Member State for the right to pursue the profession of doctor through the system of automatic recognition referred to in the directive; (c) the purpose of the national legislation of the host Member State is to promote patient safety and the quality of healthcare services by ensuring that healthcare professionals have the training required for their professional activity, other sufficient professional qualifications and other skills required for the professional activity?’
17

Article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code, headed ‘Specific procedure where exceptional circumstances put the overall functioning of the area without internal border control at risk’, provides: ‘1. In exceptional circumstances, where the overall functioning of the area without internal border control is put at risk as a result of persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control as referred to in Article 21 of this Regulation or as a result of the non-compliance of a Member State with a [decision of the Council of the European Union] referred to in Article 19(1) of [Regulation 2016/1624], and in so far as those circumstances constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border control or within parts thereof, border control at internal borders may be reintroduced in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article for a period of up to six months. That period may be prolonged, no more than three times, for a further period of up to six months if the exceptional circumstances persist. 2. The Council may, as a last resort and as a measure to protect the common interests within the area without internal border control, where all other measures, in particular those referred to in Article 21(1) [of this Regulation], are ineffective in mitigating the serious threat identified, recommend that one or more Member States decide to reintroduce border control at all or at specific parts of their internal borders. The Council’s recommendation shall be based on a proposal from the Commission. The Member States may request the Commission to submit such a proposal to the Council for a recommendation. In its recommendation, the Council shall at least indicate the information referred to in Article 27(1)(a) to (e). The Council may recommend a prolongation in accordance with the conditions and procedure set out in this Article. Before a Member State reintroduces border control at all or at specific parts of its internal borders under this paragraph, it shall notify the other Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission accordingly. … 4. On duly justified grounds of urgency relating to situations where the circumstances giving rise to the need to prolong border control at internal borders in accordance with paragraph 2 become known less than 10 days before the end of the preceding reintroduction period, the Commission may adopt any necessary recommendations by means of immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 38(3). Within 14 days of the adoption of such recommendations, the Commission shall submit to the Council a proposal for a recommendation in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article. 5. This Article shall be without prejudice to measures that may be adopted by the Member States in the event of a serious threat to public policy or internal security under Articles 25, 27 and 28.’
20

In those circumstances, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Are the provisions of [Regulation No 1215/2012], in particular Article 2(a) and Article 39, to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that is to be enforced exists even if, in a Member State, the judgment debtor is obliged, after summary examination in adversarial proceedings, albeit relating only to the binding nature of the force of res judicata of a judgment given against him in a third State, to pay to the party who was successful in the third State proceedings the debt that was judicially recognised in the third State, when the subject matter of the proceedings in the Member State was limited to examination of the existence of a claim derived from the judicially recognised debt against the judgment debtor? (2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 45, 46 and 52, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the existence of one of the grounds set out in Article 45 of [that regulation], enforcement must be refused if the judgment under review is not a judgment within the meaning of Article 2(a) or Article 39 of [that regulation] or the application in the Member State of origin on which the judgment is based does not fall within the scope of [that regulation]? (3) If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative: Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 42(1)(b), 46 and 53, to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning an application for refusal of enforcement, the court of the Member State addressed is compelled to assume, on the basis solely of the information provided by the court of origin in the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of [that regulation], that a judgment that falls within the scope of the regulation and is to be enforced exists?’
6

Article 1741 of the CGI, in the version applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, resulting from loi no 2010-1658 du 29 décembre 2010 (Law No 2010-1658 of 29 December 2010), provided: ‘Subject to the special provisions contained in this code, anyone who has fraudulently evaded or who has attempted fraudulently to evade the determination or the full or partial payment of the taxes covered by this code, whether by deliberately failing to file his or her return within the periods laid down, by deliberately concealing a portion of the sums liable to tax, by contriving his or her own insolvency or by impeding, by other stratagems, the collection of the tax, or by acting in any other fraudulent way, shall, regardless of the tax penalties applicable, be liable to a fine of EUR 37500 and a term of imprisonment of five years. If the acts were carried out or enabled by means of purchases or sales without invoices or with invoices which do not refer to real transactions or were designed to obtain unjustified reimbursements from the State, the perpetrator of those acts shall be punished with a fine of EUR 75000 and a term of imprisonment of five years. However, in the case of concealment, this provision shall apply only if that concealment exceeds one tenth of the taxable amount or the sum of EUR 153. Anyone convicted and sentenced under this article may be deprived of civic, civil and family rights, in accordance with Article 131-26 of the Criminal Code. In addition, the court may order that the judgment given be displayed and disseminated under the conditions provided for in Article 131-35 or 131-39 of the Criminal Code. …’
6

Article 2 of the basic regulation, entitled ‘Determination of dumping’, provides: ‘A. NORMAL VALUE 1. The normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country. … 2. Sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption shall normally be used to determine normal value if such sales volume constitutes 5% or more of the sales volume of the product under consideration to the Community. … 3. When there are no or insufficient sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade, or where because of the particular market situation such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value of the like product shall be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits, or on the basis of the export prices, in the ordinary course of trade, to an appropriate third country, provided that those prices are representative. A particular market situation for the product concerned within the meaning of the first subparagraph may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when prices are artificially low, when there is significant barter trade, or when there are non-commercial processing arrangements. 4. Sales of the like product in the domestic market of the exporting country, or export sales to a third country, at prices below unit production costs (fixed and variable) plus selling, general and administrative costs may be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, and may be disregarded in determining normal value, only if it is determined that such sales are made within an extended period in substantial quantities, and are at prices which do not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. … 5. Costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the party under investigation, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the country concerned and that it is shown that the records reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration. If costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned, they shall be adjusted or established on the basis of the costs of other producers or exporters in the same country or, where such information is not available or cannot be used, on any other reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets. Consideration shall be given to evidence submitted on the proper allocation of costs, provided that it is shown that such allocations have been historically utilised. In the absence of a more appropriate method, preference shall be given to the allocation of costs on the basis of turnover. Unless already reflected in the cost allocations under this subparagraph, costs shall be adjusted appropriately for those non-recurring items of cost which benefit future and/or current production. …’
33

As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and will enable the national court to determine the case before it. Consequently, even if, formally, the referring court has limited its question to the interpretation of a particular provision of EU law, that does not prevent the Court from providing the referring court with all the elements of interpretation of EU law which may be of assistance in adjudicating in the case pending before it, whether or not the referring court has referred to them in the wording of its questions. It is, in this regard, for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the decision to make the reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation in view of the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings (judgment of 15 July 2021, DocMorris, C‑190/20, EU:C:2021:609, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
10

The Law amending the Law on higher education institutions also amended Article 56 of that latter law. As a result, Article 56(3) of the Law on higher education institutions read as follows: ‘In higher education institutions and institutions of higher technical and vocational education, courses of study shall be taught in the official language. Those courses of study may be provided in a foreign language only in the following circumstances: (1) Courses of study pursued by foreign students in Latvia and courses of study organised as part of the cooperation provided for by European Union programmes and international agreements may be taught in the official languages of the European Union. Where the course of study to be undertaken in Latvia lasts for more than six months or represents more than 20 credits, the number of compulsory class hours to be taken by foreign students must include the learning of the official language; (2) Classes taught in the official languages of the European Union may not account for more than one fifth of the credits for the course of study, which furthermore shall not include final exams, State exams, assessed coursework and dissertations for a bachelor’s or master’s degree; (3) Courses of study that must be taught in a foreign language in order to achieve their objectives … in the following categories: linguistic and cultural studies and language courses; … (4) Joint courses of study may be taught in the official languages of the European Union.’
149

In its second plea, easyJet submits, inter alia, that the Commission, first, erred in law by finding the existence of ‘subsidies’, even before it had examined the measures at issue and the contracts concluded by the airport operators with the airlines to perform them in the light of the market economy operator principle. Second, it argues that the Commission wrongly refrained from carrying out that examination in the light of the aforementioned principle by relying on the ‘public policy objectives’ pursued by the Autonomous Region; the fact that the measures at issue and the contracts for their implementation purportedly arose from a ‘scheme’ which did not call for further implementing measures and defined its beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner; the ‘private’ character of some of the airport operators concerned; and the role of ‘intermediary’ played by those operators. Third, it alleges that the Commission committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment by failing to analyse correctly and with detailed arguments the profitability of the measures at issue with regard to the various mechanisms established by those measures, by attaching undue importance to the absence of a tender procedure and by disputing the Autonomous Region’s genuine need for air transport services. Fourth, it submits that the Commission erred in failing to determine whether the contracts concluded between the airport operators and the airlines could be considered as the conduct of economic operators acting under normal market conditions, having regard to the commercial and economic interest of the services provided under those contracts, the price paid in return for them, and the other legal and practical arrangements for the conclusion and performance of those contracts. In that context, easyJet refers, inter alia, to the plans of activities which had to be prepared by the airport operators, to the profitability requirements which were to direct both those plans of activities and the contracts concluded with the airlines, and to the way in which those requirements were put into effect in practice by Geasar and Sogaer in relation to easyJet.
21

The referring court considers that, on the basis of national law alone, the claim of the appellants in the main proceedings for annulment of the rules of the involvement agreement relating to the appointment of employees’ representatives to the reduced Supervisory Board should be upheld. The first sentence of Paragraph 21(6) of the SEBG, in its view, requires the parties to the involvement agreement to ensure, when an SE is established by means of transformation, that the elements of a procedure for the involvement of employees, within the meaning of Paragraph 2(8) of the SEBG, that characterise the employees’ influence on decision-making within a company, continue to exist to the same extent in the SE to be established. Thus, first of all, those elements must be determined in the light of the relevant national law, depending in each case on the procedures for the involvement of employees already in place in the public limited-liability company to be transformed, for the purposes of Paragraph 2(8) of the SEBG. Next, the elements that characterise the employees’ influence on decision-making within a company should continue to exist to the same extent in the SE to be established. While the first sentence of Paragraph 21(6) of the SEBG does not require that the procedures and the legal situation in the company to be transformed be preserved in full, the procedural elements that decisively characterise the influence of employees’ representatives on decision-making within the company to be transformed should be guaranteed qualitatively, to the same extent, in the agreement on the involvement of employees applicable to the SE. In accordance with national law, the holding of a separate ballot for the election of candidates nominated by the trade unions as employees’ representatives to the reduced Supervisory Board has the aim precisely of strengthening the influence of employees’ representatives on decision-making within a company, by ensuring that those representatives include persons who are highly familiar with the circumstances and requirements of the undertaking, while at the same time having external expertise.
10

Article 12 of that directive, entitled ‘Application for permits’, is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an application for a permit includes a description of the following: (a) the installation and its activities; (b) the raw and auxiliary materials, other substances and the energy used in or generated by the installation; (c) the sources of emissions from the installation; (d) the conditions of the site of the installation; (e) where applicable, a baseline report in accordance with Article 22(2); (f) the nature and quantities of foreseeable emissions from the installation into each medium as well as identification of significant effects of the emissions on the environment; (g) the proposed technology and other techniques for preventing or, where this is not possible, reducing emissions from the installation; (h) measures for the prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling and recovery of waste generated by the installation; (i) further measures planned to comply with the general principles of the basic obligations of the operator as provided for in Article 11; (j) measures planned to monitor emissions into the environment; (k) the main alternatives to the proposed technology, techniques and measures studied by the applicant in outline. An application for a permit shall also include a non-technical summary of the details referred to in the first subparagraph. 2. Where information supplied in accordance with the requirements provided for in [Council] Directive 85/337/EEC [of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40)] or a safety report prepared in accordance with [Council] Directive 96/82/EC [of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)] or other information produced in response to other legislation fulfils any of the requirements of paragraph 1, that information may be included in, or attached to, the application.’
7

Article 23 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Time limits for surrender of the person’, provides: ‘1. The person requested shall be surrendered as soon as possible on a date agreed between the authorities concerned. 2. He or she shall be surrendered no later than 10 days after the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant. 3. If the surrender of the requested person within the period laid down in paragraph 2 is prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any of the Member States, the executing and issuing judicial authorities shall immediately contact each other and agree on a new surrender date. In that event, the surrender shall take place within 10 days of the new date thus agreed. 4. The surrender may exceptionally be temporarily postponed for serious humanitarian reasons, for example if there are substantial grounds for believing that it would manifestly endanger the requested person’s life or health. The execution of the European arrest warrant shall take place as soon as these grounds have ceased to exist. The executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority and agree on a new surrender date. In that event, the surrender shall take place within 10 days of the new date thus agreed. 5. Upon expiry of the time limits referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4, if the person is still being held in custody he shall be released.’
24

As a preliminary point, it should be noted, first, that the question referred is based on the finding that M, whose custody is, in particular, the subject matter of the proceedings before the Swedish courts, actually transferred, during the proceedings, his habitual residence to the territory of a third State, namely the Russian Federation, which is a party to the 1996 Hague Convention. In so far as, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, the child’s place of habitual residence, which is the place which is, in practice, the centre of that child’s life (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 June 2018, HR, C‑512/17, EU:C:2018:513, paragraph 42), must be established on the basis of a global analysis of the particular circumstances of each individual case (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 June 2018, HR, C‑512/17, EU:C:2018:513, paragraphs 42 and 54), it is not for the Court but for the national courts to satisfy themselves that that habitual residence has actually moved outside the territory of the Member State concerned. In that regard, it should be recalled that, in addition to the physical presence of the child on the territory of a State, other factors must be chosen which are capable of showing that that presence is not in any way temporary or intermittent and that it reflects some degree of integration of the child into a social and family environment (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 June 2018, HR, C‑512/17, EU:C:2018:513, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).