ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
10

In accordance with Annex II to that regulation: ‘… 6. Grape marc spirit or grape marc (a) Grape marc spirit or grape marc is a spirit drink which meets the following conditions: (i) it is produced exclusively from grape marc fermented and distilled either directly by water vapour or after water has been added; (ii) a quantity of lees may be added to the grape marc that does not exceed 25 kg of lees per 100 kg of grape marc used; (iii) the quantity of alcohol derived from the lees shall not exceed 35% of the total quantity of alcohol in the finished product; (iv) the distillation shall be carried out in the presence of the marc itself at less than 86% vol.; (v) redistillation at the same alcoholic strength is authorised; (vi) it contains a quantity of volatile substances equal to or exceeding 140 grams per hectolitre of 100% vol. alcohol and has a maximum methanol content of 1000 grams per hectolitre of 100% vol. alcohol. (b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of grape marc spirit or grape marc shall be 37.5%. (c) No addition of alcohol as defined in Annex I(5), diluted or not, shall take place. (d) Grape marc spirit or grape marc shall not be flavoured. This shall not exclude traditional production methods. (e) Grape marc spirit or grape marc may only contain added caramel as a means to adapt colour. … 28. Anis (a) Anis is an aniseed-flavoured spirit drink whose characteristic flavour is derived exclusively from anise (Pimpinella anisum L.) and/or star anise (Illicium verum Hook f.) and/or fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.). (b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of anis shall be 35%. (c) Only natural flavouring substances and preparations as defined in Article 1(2)(b)(i) and Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 88/388/EEC may be used in the preparation of anis. 29. Distilled anis (a) Distilled anis is anis which contains alcohol distilled in the presence of the seeds referred to in category 28(a), and in the case of geographical indications mastic and other aromatic seeds, plants or fruits, provided such alcohol constitutes at least 20% of the alcoholic strength of the distilled anis. (b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of distilled anis shall be 35%. (c) Only natural flavouring substances and preparations as defined in Article 1(2)(b)(i) and Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 88/388/EEC may be used in the preparation of distilled anis. …’
21

In those circumstances the Østre Landsret (High Court of Eastern Denmark, Denmark) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) In a case where “new restrictions” have been introduced for family reunification between spouses which prima facie infringe … Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 … and those restrictions are justified on the basis of the judgments of 12 April 2016, Genc (C‑561/14, EU:C:2016:247) and of 10 July 2014, Dogan (C‑138/13, EU:C:2014:2066), recognising the consideration of “successful integration”, can a rule such as Paragraph 9(7) of the [Law on foreign nationals] — under which, inter alia, it is a general condition for family reunification between a person who is a third-country national and has a residence permit in Denmark and that person’s spouse that the couple’s attachment to Denmark be greater than to Turkey — be deemed to be “justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and not going beyond what is necessary in order to attain it”? (2) If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, with the result that the attachment requirement is generally deemed to be suitable for ensuring attainment of the integration objective, is it then possible, without infringing the restriction test and the requirement of proportionality: [(a)] to apply a practice under which, when the spouse with the residence permit in the Member State (the sponsor) first came to Denmark at the age of 12 to 13 or later, in the assessment of the sponsor’s attachment to the Member State significant weight is attached to the following: — whether the person either has had a long-term lawful period of residence of around 12 years in the Member State; — or has had a period of residence and stable employment in the Member State involving a significant degree of contact and communication with colleagues and any customers in the Member State’s language, and which has continued without significant interruptions for at least 4 to 5 years; — or has had a period of residence and stable employment not involving a significant degree of contact and communication with colleagues and customers in the Member State’s language, which has continued without significant interruptions for at least 7 to 8 years; [(b)] to apply a practice under which it will weigh against fulfilment of the attachment requirement where the sponsor has maintained a significant attachment to his home country by making frequent or long-term visits to the home country, whilst short-term holiday or educational stays will not weigh against granting a permit; [(c)] to apply a practice under which it will weigh heavily against fulfilment of the attachment requirement where there is a so-called “married, divorced and remarried” situation?’
10

Part One of the CN, containing the preliminary provisions, includes a Section I on general rules, under which Subsection A, entitled ‘General rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature’, provides, inter alia, as follows: ‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles: 1. The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions. … 6. For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section and chapter notes also apply, unless the context requires otherwise.’
9

Article 22 of that directive, entitled ‘Individual assessment of victims to identify specific protection needs’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that victims receive a timely and individual assessment, in accordance with national procedures, to identify specific protection needs and to determine whether and to what extent they would benefit from special measures in the course of criminal proceedings, as provided for under Articles 23 and 24, due to their particular vulnerability to secondary and repeat victimisation, to intimidation and to retaliation. 2. The individual assessment shall, in particular, take into account: (a) the personal characteristics of the victim; (b) the type or nature of the crime; and (c) the circumstances of the crime. 3. In the context of the individual assessment, particular attention shall be paid to victims who have suffered considerable harm due to the severity of the crime; victims who have suffered a crime committed with a bias or discriminatory motive which could, in particular, be related to their personal characteristics; victims whose relationship to and dependence on the offender make them particularly vulnerable. In this regard, victims of terrorism, organised crime, human trafficking, gender-based violence, violence in a close relationship, sexual violence, exploitation or hate crime, and victims with disabilities shall be duly considered. 4. For the purposes of this Directive, child victims shall be presumed to have specific protection needs due to their vulnerability to secondary and repeat victimisation, to intimidation and to retaliation. To determine whether and to what extent they would benefit from special measures as provided for under Articles 23 and 24, child victims shall be subject to an individual assessment as provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article. 5. The extent of the individual assessment may be adapted according to the severity of the crime and the degree of apparent harm suffered by the victim. 6. Individual assessments shall be carried out with the close involvement of the victim and shall take into account their wishes including where they do not wish to benefit from special measures as provided for in Articles 23 and 24. 7. If the elements that form the basis of the individual assessment have changed significantly, Member States shall ensure that it is updated throughout the criminal proceedings.’
31

In those circumstances, the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that an action for a declaration of the existence of a claim under Austrian law concerns insolvency for the purposes of [that provision] and is, therefore, excluded from the material scope of that regulation? (2) (only in the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative): Is Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 to be applied analogously to related actions falling within the scope of Regulation No 1346/2000? (3) (only in the event that the first question is answered in the negative or that the second question is answered in the affirmative): Is Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties exist when a creditor (the [appellant in the main proceedings]) who has lodged a (largely) identical claim in the main proceedings in Austria and in the secondary proceedings in Poland, which (in the main) was contested by the respective administrators, brings actions for a declaration of the existence of claims of a certain amount first in Poland against the administrator acting in the secondary proceedings in that country and then in Austria against the administrator acting in the main proceedings ([Mr Riel])? (4) Is Article 41 of Regulation No 1346/2000 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to indicate the “nature of the claim, the date on which it arose and its amount” is satisfied where, in the lodgement of his claim in the main insolvency, as is the case here, the creditor established in a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings (the [appellant in the main proceedings]): (a) describes the claim simply by assigning a specific amount to it without stating the date on which that claim arose (for example, as a “claim of the subcontractor JSV Slawomir Kubica in respect of the carrying out of roadworks”); (b) does not state the date on which the claim arose in the declaration itself, but such a date may be inferred from the annexes submitted with the declaration of claim (for example, on the basis of the date stated on the invoice submitted)? (5) Must Article 41 of Regulation No 1346/2000 be interpreted as not precluding the application of national provisions — for example those relating to the requirement to state the day on which a claim arose — which are more favourable in the particular case to the creditor lodging the claim, who is established in a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings?’
35

In those circumstances, the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Barcelona (Social Court No 3, Barcelona) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must workers who are categorised as “particularly susceptible to certain risks” be regarded as persons with a disability for the purposes of the application of Directive 2000/78, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court, where, owing to their own personal characteristics or known biological condition, those workers are particularly susceptible to occupational risks and, for that reason, are unable to perform certain jobs on the ground that such jobs would entail a risk to their own health or to other individuals? If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the following questions are referred: (2) Does the decision to dismiss a worker on economic, technical, organisational and production grounds constitute an act of direct or indirect discrimination, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78, if the person concerned has a recognised disability, in that she is particularly susceptible when it comes to performing certain jobs on account of her physical impairments, and therefore has difficulties achieving the productivity levels required in order to avoid being put forward for dismissal? (3) Does the decision to dismiss a worker on economic, technical, organisational and production grounds constitute an act of direct or indirect discrimination, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78, if the person concerned has a recognised disability, in that she has been recognised as being particularly susceptible when it comes to performing certain jobs on account of her physical impairments, and the decision is taken, among other selection criteria, on the basis of multi-skilling in all jobs, including those which the disabled person is unable to perform? (4) Does the decision to dismiss a worker on economic, technical, organisational and production grounds constitute an act of indirect discrimination, as defined in Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78, if the person concerned has a recognised disability and has therefore been recognised as being particularly susceptible when it comes to performing certain jobs on account of her physical impairments, which have resulted in long periods of absence or sick leave prior to the dismissal, and the decision is taken, among other selection criteria, on the basis of that worker’s absenteeism?’
8

According to the referring court, cash withdrawal transactions took place follows. As soon as a bank account holder inserted his bank card into a cash point, special software would read the data from that card. Cardpoint would verify those data and request authorisation of the withdrawal transaction in question from Bank-Verlag GmbH. Bank-Verlag GmbH would forward the request to the interbank network, which would in turn pass it on to the bank that issued the bank card concerned. That bank would verify whether the bank account holder had sufficient funds in his account and transmit, back through the same channels, an approval or refusal of the withdrawal requested. If authorised, Cardpoint would execute the withdrawal at the cash point and generate a data file on that withdrawal. It sent that data file as a payment order to its client, the bank operating the cash point in question. That bank transmitted the data files unchanged into the records system of the Deutsche Bundesbank (the German Federal Bank). Cardpoint would also generate a daily, non-editable list of all the day’s transactions, which would also be sent to the German Federal Bank. That data transfer evidenced the right of the bank operating the cash point in question to obtain reimbursement from the bank of the account holder who withdrew the money and payment of any charges thereby incurred.
6

According to Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system (OJ 2006 L 178, p. 39), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 707/2008 of 24 July 2008 (OJ 2008 L 197, p. 4) (‘Regulation No 952/2006’): ‘1. Each marketing year, the competent authority of the Member State shall carry out checks on each approved manufacturer and refiner. 2. The checks shall aim to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information in the records referred to in Article 9 and of the communications referred to in Article 21 by means, in particular, of an analysis of the consistency between the quantities of raw materials delivered and the quantities of end products obtained, and analysis of a reconciliation of the records with the commercial documents or other relevant documents. The checks shall verify the accuracy of the measuring instruments and laboratory analyses used to determine deliveries of raw materials and their entry into production, the products obtained and stock movements. Checks shall include verification of the accuracy and completeness of the data used to establish the average monthly selling prices of the undertaking referred to in Article 13(2). For sugar manufacturers, checks shall also cover compliance with the obligation to pay the minimum price to beet growers. At least once every two years, checks shall include physical checks on stocks. 3. Where it is provided by the competent authorities of the Member State that particular elements of the check may be carried out on the basis of a sample, that sample shall guarantee a reliable and representative level of control. 4. Member States may require approved undertakings to use a certifying body for accounts, recognised in the Member State, to certify the price data referred to in Article 13. 5. Every on-the-spot check shall be the subject of an inspection report signed by the inspector giving the details of the checks carried out. Reports shall indicate in particular: (a) the date of the check, and the persons present; (b) the period checked and the quantities involved; (c) the checking techniques used including, where applicable, reference to sampling methods; (d) the results of the check and any corrective measures required; (e) an assessment of the seriousness, extent, permanence and duration of any faults and discrepancies found and all other elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of applying penalties. Each inspection report shall be archived and kept for at least three years following the year in which the check is carried out, in a way that ensures that it is readily useable by the Commission departments responsible for checks and inspections. 6. The Member States shall assist one another to ensure effective controls, and to ensure the check on the authenticity of documents submitted and/or the accuracy of the data exchanged.’
8

Chapter 2, which is entitled ‘Units and groupings of units’, of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013 includes paragraphs 2.21 to 2.23, 2.27 and 2.28 of that annex, which read as follows: ‘Captive financial institutions 2.21 A holding company that simply owns the assets of subsidiaries is one example of a captive financial institution. Examples of other units that are also treated as captive financial institutions are units with the characteristics of [special purpose entities (SPEs)] as described above, including investment and pension funds and units used for holding and managing wealth for individuals or families, issuing debt securities on behalf of related companies (such a company may be called a conduit), and carrying out other financial functions. 2.22 The degree of independence from its parent may be demonstrated by exercising some substantive control over its assets and liabilities to the extent of carrying the risks and reaping the rewards associated with the assets and liabilities. Such units are classified in the financial corporations sector. 2.23 An entity of this type that cannot act independently of its parent and is simply a passive holder of assets and liabilities (sometimes described as being on autopilot) is not treated as a separate institutional unit unless it is resident in an economy different from that of its parent. If it is resident in the same economy as its parent, it is treated as an artificial subsidiary as described below. … Special purpose units of general government 2.27 General government may also set up special purpose units, with characteristics and functions similar to the captive financial institutions and artificial subsidiaries. Such units do not have the power to act independently and are restricted in the range of transactions they can engage in. They do not carry the risks and rewards associated with the assets and liabilities they hold. Such units, if they are resident, shall be treated as an integral part of general government and not as separate units. If they are non-resident, they shall be treated as separate units. Any transactions carried out by them abroad shall be reflected in corresponding transactions with government. Thus, a unit that borrows abroad is then regarded as lending the same amount to general government, and on the same terms, as the original borrowing. 2.28 In summary, the accounts of SPEs with no independent rights of action are consolidated with the parent corporation, unless they are resident in a different economy from that of the parent. There is one exception to this general rule, and that is when a non-resident SPE is set up by government.’
8

The preamble to Ley 15/2012 de medidas fiscales para la sostenibilidad energética (Law 15/2012 on fiscal measures for sustainable energy), of 27 December 2012 (BOE No 312, of 28 December 2012, p. 88081, ‘the Energy Tax Law’), states: ‘The objective of [this Law] is to adapt our tax system to more efficient and environmentally friendly use and sustainable development … … The basic foundation of this Law is Article 45 of the Constitution … Thus, one of the axes of this tax reform is to internalise the environmental costs resulting from electricity production … The Law must serve as a stimulus to improve our levels of energy efficiency while at the same time ensuring better management of natural resources and continuing to enhance the new model of sustainable development, both from an economic and social point of view, as well as from an environmental point of view. … To this end, this Law regulates three new taxes: … the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the generation of nuclear power, and the tax on the storage of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in centralised facilities … … The production of electricity using nuclear energy implies the acceptance by society of a number of burdens and obligations, due to the particular characteristics of this type of energy, whose economic impact is difficult to determine. Society must assume a wide range of responsibilities resulting from this production, such as the management of the radioactive waste generated and the possible use of materials for non-peaceful purposes. … The assessment of the total cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants and the final management of radioactive waste still present significant uncertainties that will ultimately affect society after the cessation of operation of nuclear power plants, in particular with regard to the final management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Thus, given the long life span of some radioactive waste, which extends over generations, it is essential to establish, after its final management, the necessary measures to prevent an external agent from causing its release into the environment or any other adverse effects, which will require long-term institutional monitoring, that will be the responsibility of the State. Another distinctive feature of the nuclear power industry is the use and production of materials that must be strictly controlled in order to prevent them from being used for non-peaceful purposes or any other type of malicious act affecting them, which requires Spain … to assume the attendant responsibilities and, therefore, provide resources to deal with this. Thus, the State must provide the necessary resources to keep existing nuclear emergency plans operational. In the light of the above, it is appropriate to establish a levy on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in nuclear installations and on their storage in centralised facilities in order to offset the costs which society has to bear as a result of that production.’