diff --git "a/cjeu_terms.jsonl" "b/cjeu_terms.jsonl" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/cjeu_terms.jsonl" @@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@ +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["37 See Pato, A., \u2018The National Adaptation of Article 80 GDPR: Towards the Effective Private Enforcement of Collective Rights\u2019, National Adaptations of the GDPR, Blogdroiteuropeen, Collection Open Access Book, Luxembourg, 2019, pp. 98-106. According to that author, \u2018the number of actors who potentially have standing to sue is broad\u2019 and \u2018consumer associations will usually meet those requirements easily\u2019 (p. 99)."], "id": "45bb834f-3465-45cb-a78c-5eaffafb5c75", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["it is established that the law to which the data importer or a sub-processor is subject imposes upon him requirements to derogate from the applicable law which go beyond the restrictions necessary in a democratic society as provided for in Article 13 of [Directive 95/46] where those requirements are likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the guarantees provided by the applicable data protection law and the standard contractual clauses;"], "id": "fdfef389-faa6-4bc5-8e3c-651fd86b119c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Before the Court, Mr Schrems claims that the \u2018privacy shield\u2019 decision is invalid on the ground that the safeguards thus described are not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of protection of the fundamental rights of persons whose data are transferred to the United States. The DPC, the EPIC and the Austrian, Polish and Portuguese Governments, without directly calling into question the validity of that decision, dispute the assessments made by the Commission in that decision concerning the adequacy of the level of protection against the interferences resulting from the activities of the United States intelligence services. Those doubts convey the concerns expressed by the Parliament, the EDPB and the European Supervisor."], "id": "c5431be2-ce73-4e22-a378-59ded1d2ca6d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["See Article 29 Working Party on (\u2018WP29\u2019), Opinion 1/2016 on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision, 13 April 2016, WP 238; WP29, EU-US Privacy Shield \u2014 First Annual Joint Review, 28 November 2017, WP 255, and EDPB, EU-US Privacy Shield \u2014 Second Annual Joint Review, 22 January 2019. WP29 had been set up pursuant to Article 29(1) of Directive 95/46, which provided that it was to have advisory status and to act independently. In accordance with paragraph 2 of that article, that working party was composed of a representative of each national supervisory authority, a representative of each authority established for the Community institutions and bodies and a representative of the Commission. Since the entry into force of the GDPR, the Article 29 Working Party has been replaced by the EDPB (see Article 94(2) of that regulation)."], "id": "8ddc8fd8-5e29-45f8-90e4-5789da2e9a5a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["What should then perhaps be required, at a minimum, is a change, alteration, manipulation, or any other processing in the sense of \u2018added value\u2019 to, or \u2018fair use\u2019 of, the personal data at issue. Alternatively, or in connection, a finer emphasis should be placed on the concept of automated means that would exclude all other forms of mere disclosure by non-automated means, whether that be orally or by a mere inspection of a written document. The addition of such, or any other similar, threshold test could thus help refocus the rules on activities that were supposed to be caught in the first place, while leaving aside those accidental, incidental, or minimal uses of personal data that would otherwise incur the full wrath and force of the GDPR\u2019s rights and obligations."], "id": "6e586fa1-9a6b-4d24-b15c-1eecc18adb19", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The order for reference does not indicate whether the Saeima, prior to the adoption of the provision at issue, considered other means of achieving the objective of promoting road safety which would have led to less interference with the right of individuals to . Furthermore, the legislature must be able to demonstrate that the derogations and limitations to data protection would be in strict compliance with the limits imposed. A careful assessment of the impact on data protection should be carried out before publishing a data set (or before adopting a law requiring its publication), including an assessment of the possibilities for re-use and the potential impact of re-use."], "id": "f8aed7dc-e48d-4e15-9aee-c912ab44b43e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["A point that would later be made by the much-missed Advocate General Bot in his Opinion in Ireland v Parliament and Council (C\u2011301/06, EU:C:2008:558). He stated that the judgment in Parliament v Council and Commission\u2018does not mean that only the examination of the objective pursued by the processing of personal data is relevant for the purpose of including or excluding such processing from the scope of the system of instituted by Directive 95/46. It is also necessary to ascertain in the course of which type of activity data processing is carried out. It is only where it is undertaken in course of activities specific to States or to State authorities and unrelated to the fields of activity of individuals that it is excluded from the Community system of personal data protection arising from Directive 95/46 pursuant to the first indent of Article 3(2) thereof\u2019 (point 122)."], "id": "59c27751-ae8b-430d-a4e2-3af1eead096d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the interpretation of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation 2016/679, it lays down three cumulative conditions in order for the processing of personal data to be lawful, namely, first, the pursuit of a legitimate interest by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed; second, the need to process personal data for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued; and third, that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the person concerned by the do not take precedence."], "id": "e84ca5f1-8068-4eca-a33c-ddb15d7ea66e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Mutatis mutandis, a Commission decision adopted pursuant to Article 26(4) of Directive [95/46] is binding on all organs of the Member States to which it is addressed, including their independent supervisory authorities, in so far as it has the effect of recognising that transfers taking place on the basis of standard contractual clauses set out therein offer sufficient safeguards as required by Article 26(2) of that Directive. This does not prevent a national supervisory authority from exercising its powers to oversee data flows, including the power to suspend or ban a transfer of personal data when it determines that the transfer is carried out in violation of EU or national law, such as, for instance, when the data importer does not respect the standard contractual clauses.\u2019"], "id": "00c5bd4b-adf9-43dd-80c5-ac4baa6b20f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, as is clear from the wording of the seventh question and the corresponding explanations in the request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks whether the SCC Decision is capable of ensuring an adequate level of protection of the personal data transferred to third countries given that the standard clauses provided for in that decision do not bind the supervisory authorities of those third countries."], "id": "a954a0ff-075b-4571-81ad-8ceb020f240e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["By its ninth question, the referring court wishes to know, in essence, whether and to what extent findings in the Privacy Shield Decision to the effect that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection are binding on the supervisory authority of a Member State. By its 4th, 5th and 10th questions, that court asks, in essence, whether, in view of its own findings on US law, the transfer to that third country of personal data pursuant to the standard clauses in the annex to the SCC Decision breaches the rights enshrined in Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter and asks the Court, in particular, whether the introduction of the ombudsperson referred to in Annex III to the Privacy Shield Decision is compatible with Article 47 of the Charter."], "id": "0bfa0594-b379-46fb-b9c7-68b82c69611f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it is apparent from the information set out in that request that, although those contracts contain a clause stating that the customers concerned have been informed of, and have given their consent to, the storage of a copy of their identity document for identification purposes, the box relating to that clause had already been ticked by Orange Rom\u00e2nia\u2019s sales agents before those customers signed in acceptance of all the clauses, that is to say, both of that clause and of clauses not linked to . The request further states that although not specified in the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, Orange Rom\u00e2nia agreed to conclude those contracts with customers who refused to consent to a copy of their identity document being stored, and at the same time required in that case that those customers sign a specific form setting out their refusal."], "id": "553d52db-20fe-443b-80f0-67cfcdeb3027", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the absence of common personal safeguards at global level, cross-border flows of such data entail a risk of a breach in continuity of the level of protection guaranteed in the European Union. Desirous of facilitating those flows while limiting that risk, the EU legislature has established three mechanisms whereby personal data may be transferred from the European Union to a third State."], "id": "4fab4b82-0f01-407a-aa29-e030140bc190", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, a recipient of personal data established in a third country undertakes, pursuant to Clause 5(a), to inform the controller established in the European Union promptly of any inability to comply with its obligations under the contract concluded. In particular, according to Clause 5(b), the recipient certifies that it has no reason to believe that the legislation applicable to it prevents it from fulfilling its obligations under the contract entered into and undertakes to notify the data controller about any change in the national legislation applicable to it which is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the warranties and obligations provided by the standard clauses in the annex to the SCC Decision, promptly upon notice thereof. Furthermore, although Clause 5(d)(i) allows a recipient of personal data not to notify a controller established in the European Union of a legally binding request for disclosure of the personal data by a law enforcement authority, in the event of legislation prohibiting that recipient from doing so, such as a prohibition under criminal law the aim of which is to preserve the confidentiality of a law enforcement investigation, the recipient is nevertheless required, pursuant to Clause 5(a) in the annex to the SCC Decision, to inform the controller of his or her inability to comply with the standard data protection clauses."], "id": "91aaaee8-eeee-427c-bfb0-99a0d01be725", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["On the one hand, as regards infringements by controllers or processors of the rules that took place prior to the date in which the GDPR became applicable, I believe that those proceedings may continue. I cannot see any good reason to force the authorities to terminate enforcement actions which relate to past conduct that was (allegedly) unlawful when committed, and against which they were (at the time) competent to take action. A different solution would lead to a sort of amnesty with regard to certain breaches of data protection laws."], "id": "a24e846d-9bf5-4e89-a544-44b21d3e5350", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Where processing is based on consent, the controller shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to processing of his or her personal data.\u2019 See Position (EU) No 6/2016 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation), adopted by the Council on 8 April 2016 (OJ 2016 C 159, p. 1), at p. 36."], "id": "e0a4f134-724b-409d-985f-9fcdbcb1ff41", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["If a third country data importer is subject to surveillance laws that in the view of a [supervisory authority] conflict with [the standard contractual clauses] or Article 25 and 26 of Directive [95/46] and/or the Charter, is a authority required to use its enforcement powers under Article 28(3) of the Directive to suspend data flows or is the exercise of those powers limited to exceptional cases only, in light of recital 11 of [Decision 2010/87], or can a [supervisory authority] use its discretion not to suspend data flows?"], "id": "03854699-7b79-4b7d-8662-8b61fb1850cb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from those provisions that the supervisory authorities\u2019 primary responsibility is to monitor the application of the GDPR and to ensure its enforcement. The exercise of that responsibility is of particular importance where personal data is transferred to a third country since, as is clear from recital 116 of that regulation, \u2018when personal data moves across borders outside the Union it may put at increased risk the ability of natural persons to exercise rights in particular to protect themselves from the unlawful use or disclosure of that information\u2019. In such cases, as is stated in that recital, \u2018supervisory authorities may find that they are unable to pursue complaints or conduct investigations relating to the activities outside their borders\u2019."], "id": "87aad0cf-bb36-4da1-a718-92bb93c23837", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["1. The present request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium) arises out of a request by a person who subscribes to a telecommunications service that his contact details no longer appear in public electronic telephone directories or be available from directory enquiry services. It raises important issues as to the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation), (2) Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (3) and the relationship between those two acts."], "id": "260434fd-8897-446d-ba9f-e13c028bf014", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, relevant legislation, both general and sectoral, including concerning public security, defence, national security and criminal law and the access of public authorities to personal data, as well as the implementation of such legislation, rules, professional rules and security measures, including rules for the onward transfer of personal data to another third country or international organisation which are complied with in that country or international organisation, case-law, as well as effective and enforceable data subject rights and effective administrative and judicial redress for the data subjects whose personal data are being transferred;"], "id": "92d6efdb-7148-400a-8acf-96f06cd49ee1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["On this issue, see generally Giurgiu, A. and Larsen, T., \u2018Roles and Powers of National Authorities \u2013 Moving from Directive 95/46/EC to the GDPR: Stronger and More \u201cEuropean\u201d DPAs as Guardians of Consistency?\u2019European Data Protection Law Review, 2016, pp. 342-352, at 349; and Voigt, P., von dem Bussche, A., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) \u2013 A Practical Guide, Springer, 2017, pp. 190-192."], "id": "5e0b3395-391c-4754-827c-69405443fc40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Following that judgment, the referring court annulled the rejection of Mr Schrems\u2019s complaint and referred that decision back to the Commissioner. In the course of the Commissioner\u2019s investigation, Facebook Ireland explained that a large part of personal data was transferred to Facebook Inc. pursuant to the standard clauses set out in the annex to the SCC Decision. On that basis, the Commissioner asked Mr Schrems to reformulate his complaint."], "id": "01d4f13c-19eb-4e8f-8e35-a460ced485d2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["88. This approach, however, presents a number of difficulties: \u2013 It would probably not be enough to identify a group of potential aggressors if the latter use anonymisation techniques or falsify their identities. Choosing such groups could also have the effect of creating a climate of general suspicion in relation to certain segments of the population and might be considered discriminatory, depending on the algorithm used. \u2013 Selection by geographical criteria (which, to be effective, would involve targeting areas of a not insignificant size) raises the same problems and creates yet more, as the European Supervisor indicated at the hearing, in that it could stigmatise certain areas."], "id": "3a9f6148-a6cd-45bb-aed8-93f443679280", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Pursuant to Article 3 of the Wet van 3 december 2017 tot oprichting van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (Law of 3 December 2017 establishing the Belgian Authority; \u2018the DPA Law\u2019), which entered into force on 25 May 2018, a Data Protection Authority (\u2018the DPA\u2019) was established to succeed the Privacy Commission. In accordance with Article 6 of that law, the DPA \u2018has the power to bring any infringement of the fundamental principles of personal data protection, within the framework of this law and laws containing provisions on the protection of the processing of personal data, to the attention of the judicial authorities and, where appropriate, to take legal action to have these fundamental principles applied\u2019."], "id": "5542ba47-5b6d-4841-801e-cabe7935c847", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The aim of the rule laid down in point (j) is \u2014 I assume \u2014 to permit the EU or national legislature to decide that, in the context of proceedings for the enforcement of civil law claims, the specific rules on discovery prevail, in case of conflict, over the general rules stemming from . Indeed, most jurisdictions provide for special regimes of discovery in the context of judicial procedures, including civil law procedures. However, Member States\u2019 regimes vary significantly. Given the importance of such regimes, it is possible to assume that the EU legislature could decide that their application should not be affected by the rules on data protection. Logically, that must be so, irrespective of whether the parties are subjects of private or public law, and regardless of the private or public interest on which their action or defence is based."], "id": "bb99ff18-a626-44e9-b449-266a3665d3f0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Without prejudice to the law on the protection of industrial and commercial property, medicinal products for human use which have been authorised in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation shall benefit from an eight-year period of and a ten-year period of marketing protection, in which connection the latter period shall be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorisation holders obtains an authorisation for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorisation, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.\u2019"], "id": "f1f3f15a-1e5a-4d6e-af71-ead55cc1ae0e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["As mentioned in points 76 and 77 above, the GDPR is built on a delicate equilibrium between the need to ensure a high level of protection of natural persons and the need to remove the obstacles to flows of personal data within the Union. Those two objectives are, as evidenced in particular by recital 10 and Article 1(1) of the GDPR, inextricably linked. National supervisory authorities must therefore ensure a fair balance between them, as the Court has consistently emphasised from its first judgments in the field of . Article 51(1) of the GDPR, in defining the supervisory authorities\u2019 mission, reflects that approach."], "id": "cfbd907e-8136-4800-b54c-7dbf773a209d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The limits of the system set up under Directive 95/46 also became evident in a number of judgments of the Court. In Weltimmo, the Court held that the powers of authorities were strictly limited by the principle of territoriality: those authorities could act against breaches taking place only within their own territory, having in all other cases to ask the authorities of the other Member States to intervene. In Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein, the Court ruled that, in the case of cross-border processing, each data protection authority could exercise its powers with respect to an entity established in its territory, independently of the views and actions of the data protection authority of the Member State where the entity responsible for that processing has its seat."], "id": "bdec6d6c-9fd9-49db-add8-a171a7ff8251", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["A person established within the Union who manufactures or imports a relevant substance, on its own or in biocidal products \u2026 or who manufactures or makes available on the market a biocidal product consisting of, containing or generating that relevant substance \u2026, may at any time submit to the Agency either a complete substance dossier for that relevant substance, a letter of access to a complete substance dossier, or a reference to a complete substance dossier for which all periods have expired. \u2026"], "id": "1a61880c-7e00-4a13-86a1-ed138a577b3b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The latter aspect should be emphasised. Under Directive 95/46, economic operators active throughout the European Union were required to comply with the various sets of national rules implementing the directive, and to liaise, at the same time, with all the national authorities. That situation was not only costly, burdensome and time-consuming for the economic operators, but also an inevitable source of uncertainty and conflicts for those operators and their customers."], "id": "6b7c3efc-d794-405f-8c5e-68d69f39ee03", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["The provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation) permit the supervisory authority of a Member State to bring proceedings before a court of that State for an alleged infringement of that regulation with respect to cross-border data processing, despite not being the lead supervisory authority, provided that it does so in the situations and according to the procedures set out in the same regulation;"], "id": "9baa08d2-6251-4f5d-af8d-eda2857e16bf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Article 55(1), Articles 56 to 58 and Articles 60 to 66 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation), read together with Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a supervisory authority of a Member State which, under the national legislation adopted in order to transpose Article 58(5) of that regulation, has the power to bring any alleged infringement of that regulation to the attention of a court of that Member State and, where necessary, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, may exercise that power in relation to an instance of cross\u2011border data processing even though it is not the \u2018lead supervisory authority\u2019, within the meaning of Article 56(1) of that regulation, with respect to that data processing, provided that that power is exercised in one of the situations where Regulation 2016/679 confers on that supervisory authority a competence to adopt a decision finding that such processing is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected."], "id": "f889ed9a-8e2c-4d8e-8041-5f4f286c1b7b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["However, it should be noted that, in the judgment of 28 June 2017, Novartis Europharm v Commission (C\u2011629/15 P and C\u2011630/15 P, EU:C:2017:498), the Court of Justice gave no indication to the effect proposed by Advocate General Bobek. Furthermore, in the case which gave rise to that Opinion, the Court of Justice was not asked to rule on whether a marketing authorisation granted at EU level for a component of a combination medicinal product previously authorised by a national authority was covered by the same global authorisation as the combination at issue. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that, as is apparent from paragraphs 150 to 282 above, an approach based solely on a difference in active substances presented the risk, in the present case, of regulatory being granted contrary to the objectives pursued by the concept of a global marketing authorisation."], "id": "e3b57602-9ac9-478a-b204-a01ac47c70c4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["77 In the third place, it is still necessary to ascertain, as requested by the referring court, whether Article 80(2) of the GDPR precludes the bringing of a representative action independently of a specific infringement of a right of a data subject and of a mandate conferred by that data subject, where infringement of rules has been alleged in the context of an action seeking to review the application of other legal rules intended to ensure consumer protection."], "id": "79fb2a09-ee27-4edc-9530-df8f78297309", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["See European Supervisor, Opinion 4/2016 of 30 May 2016 on the \u2018EU-US Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision\u2019. The European Data Protection Supervisor was established by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). He monitors the application of the provisions of that regulation."], "id": "c3996436-0caa-476c-a1df-eb86bfc018c2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the Court observes that the European Board, in its Opinion 5/2019 of 12 March 2019 on the interplay between the [Directive on privacy and electronic communications] and the [General Data Protection Regulation], in particular regarding the competence, tasks and powers of data protection authorities, stated that storing and obtaining access to personal data by means of cookies fell within the scope of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37), and not within the scope of the \u2018one-stop shop\u2019 mechanism. On the other hand, all earlier processing operations, and all subsequent processing activities, with respect to that personal data, by means of other technologies, do fall within the scope of Regulation 2016/679, and consequently within the scope of the \u2018one\u2011stop shop\u2019 mechanism. Given that its request for mutual assistance concerned subsequent personal data processing operations, the DPA in April 2019 asked the Data Protection Commissioner (Ireland) to respond to its request as expeditiously as possible, but no response was provided."], "id": "a304759d-b0ed-4bd0-abe2-043177420daa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["On 10 August 2015, OLAF provided the applicant with the information requested, except for the information which was subject to strict confidentiality and personal rules and which included its investigation report. OLAF thus specified the facts at issue, the period and the projects to which those facts related (namely the grant agreements at issue, the SAPHYRE project and the ONEFIT project), as well as the recommendations addressed to the competent directorate-general concerning the recovery of the amount concerned."], "id": "3b5281c0-26fc-490f-9f00-6f9549bdc273", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that respect, Article 46(1) of the GDPR provides that the controller or processor may, in the absence of an adequacy decision, transfer personal data to a third country \u2018only if the controller or processor has provided appropriate safeguards, and on condition that enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects are available\u2019 (emphasis added). In the words of Article 46(2)(c) of the GDPR, those safeguards may be provided by standard clauses drawn up by the Commission."], "id": "de749d38-41da-4e28-b8ab-0ba9477d14f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The [EMA] shall ensure that healthcare professionals and the public have appropriate levels of access to the Eudravigilance database, while guaranteeing personal . The [EMA] shall work together with all stakeholders, including research institutions, healthcare professionals, and patient and consumer organisations, in order to define the \u201cappropriate level of access\u201d for healthcare professionals and the public to the Eudravigilance database."], "id": "6d6fa08f-ed45-4357-8723-80cac503f66c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["The second exception is in Article 66 of Regulation 2016/679, which provides, by way of derogation from the consistency mechanisms referred to in Articles 60 and Article 63 to 65 of that regulation, for an urgency procedure. That urgency procedure makes it possible, in exceptional circumstances, where the supervisory authority concerned considers that there is an urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects, immediately to adopt provisional measures intended to produce legal effects on its own territory with a specified period of validity which is not to exceed three months, while Article 66(2) of Regulation 2016/679 further provides that, where a supervisory authority has taken a measure under Article 66(1) and considers that final measures must urgently be adopted, it may request an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision from the European Board, giving reasons for requesting such an opinion or decision."], "id": "224613cd-5e79-470b-ba4f-17ce54e38301", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that Clause 4(a) and Clause 5(a) and (b) in that annex oblige the controller established in the European Union and the recipient of personal data to satisfy themselves that the legislation of the third country of destination enables the recipient to comply with the standard clauses in the annex to the SCC Decision, before transferring personal data to that third country. As regards that verification, the footnote to Clause 5 states that mandatory requirements of that legislation which do not go beyond what is necessary in a democratic society to safeguard, inter alia, national security, defence and public security are not in contradiction with those standard data protection clauses. Conversely, as stated by the Advocate General in point 131 of his Opinion, compliance with an obligation prescribed by the law of the third country of destination which goes beyond what is necessary for those purposes must be treated as a breach of those clauses. Operators\u2019 assessments of the necessity of such an obligation must, where relevant, take into account a finding that the level of protection ensured by the third country in a Commission adequacy decision, adopted under Article 45(3) of the GDPR, is appropriate."], "id": "f91bb8ae-000c-43e5-9a92-6e994ea62924", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the preamble of the GDPR, it is noted, inter alia, that: \u2018the objectives and principles of Directive 95/46/EC remain sound, but it has not prevented fragmentation in the implementation of across the Union [and] legal uncertainty\u2019 (recital 9); a consistent and homogenous application of the data protection rules should be ensured throughout the Union (recital 10); the supervisory authorities should monitor the application of the rules and contribute to its consistent application, in order to protect natural persons and to facilitate the free flow of personal data within the internal market (recital 123); in situations involving cross-border processing \u2018the supervisory authority for the main establishment of the controller or processor or for the single establishment of the controller or processor should act as lead authority\u2019 and that authority has to \u2018cooperate with the other authorities concerned\u2019 (recital 124)."], "id": "b71f8471-3c79-4c7e-97bf-e9d4cc224fa2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u201crecipient\u201d means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or another body, to which the personal data are disclosed, whether a third party or not. However, public authorities which may receive personal data in the framework of a particular inquiry in accordance with Union or Member State law shall not be regarded as recipients; the processing of those data by those public authorities shall be in compliance with the applicable rules according to the purposes of the processing;"], "id": "c05f1482-8818-42b5-a3b0-b4c25d317285", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, the answer to the second, third and sixth questions is that Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of the GDPR must be interpreted as meaning that the appropriate safeguards, enforceable rights and effective legal remedies required by those provisions must ensure that data subjects whose personal data are transferred to a third country pursuant to standard clauses are afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union by that regulation, read in the light of the Charter. To that end, the assessment of the level of protection afforded in the context of such a transfer must, in particular, take into consideration both the contractual clauses agreed between the controller or processor established in the European Union and the recipient of the transfer established in the third country concerned and, as regards any access by the public authorities of that third country to the personal data transferred, the relevant aspects of the legal system of that third country, in particular those set out, in a non-exhaustive manner, in Article 45(2) of that regulation."], "id": "d2876b64-d80c-4c7e-b995-5c3c8eb6c85a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 9, 10, 13 and 142 of the GDPR state: \u2018(9) The objectives and principles of Directive [95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31)] remain sound, but it has not prevented fragmentation in the implementation of across the Union, legal uncertainty or a widespread public perception that there are significant risks to the protection of natural persons, in particular with regard to online activity. Differences in the level of protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, with regard to the processing of personal data in the Member States may prevent the free flow of personal data throughout the Union. Those differences may therefore constitute an obstacle to the pursuit of economic activities at the level of the Union, distort competition and impede authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities under Union law. Such a difference in levels of protection is due to the existence of differences in the implementation and application of Directive [95/46]. (10) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of natural persons and to remove the obstacles to flows of personal data within the Union, the level of protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of such data should be equivalent in all Member States. Consistent and homogenous application of the rules for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data should be ensured throughout the Union. \u2026 \u2026 (13) In order to ensure a consistent level of protection for natural persons throughout the Union and to prevent divergences hampering the free movement of personal data within the internal market, a Regulation is necessary to provide legal certainty and transparency for economic operators, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and to provide natural persons in all Member States with the same level of legally enforceable rights and obligations and responsibilities for controllers and processors, to ensure consistent monitoring of the processing of personal data, and equivalent sanctions in all Member States as well as effective cooperation between the supervisory authorities of different Member States. \u2026 \u2026 (142) Where a data subject considers that his or her rights under this Regulation are infringed, he or she should have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which is constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest and is active in the field of the protection of personal data to lodge a complaint on his or her behalf with a supervisory authority, exercise the right to a judicial remedy on behalf of data subjects or, if provided for in Member State law, exercise the right to receive compensation on behalf of data subjects. A Member State may provide for such a body, organisation or association to have the right to lodge a complaint in that Member State, independently of a data subject\u2019s mandate, and the right to an effective judicial remedy where it has reasons to consider that the rights of a data subject have been infringed as a result of the processing of personal data which infringes this Regulation. That body, organisation or association may not be allowed to claim compensation on a data subject\u2019s behalf independently of the data subject\u2019s mandate.\u2019"], "id": "546d99cf-813f-4851-9d0a-e96b1b58b378", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to the TRIPs Agreement, the Court has ruled, that, while it is not directly applicable, in the areas governed by the TRIPs Agreement, the Union rules must nonetheless be interpreted in a manner consistent with the TRIPs Agreement in so far as it is possible to do so. Taking into account the fact that Article 39(3) of the TRIPs Agreement requires the protection of data against disclosure, then, if no effective steps are otherwise taken to ensure the protection of the data against unfair commercial use, the question arises whether the conferred by Article 39(10) of Regulation No 726/2004 in conjunction with Article 13 of Directive 2001/82 confers such effective protection."], "id": "c0f67792-3083-4d63-95f2-dff2160b2ec6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, I believe that the DPA and certain governments misinterpret Article 55 and Article 56(1) of the GDPR. Those interveners take the first part of the sentence in Article 56(1) out of its context, in order to reverse the relationship between the rule and the exception. To do so results in watering down the prescriptive content of several provisions of the GDPR, and frustrates the objective, emphasised inter alia in recital 10 thereof, of ensuring a more consistent and homogenous application of the rules. It would essentially amount to a return to the previous regime of Directive 95/46."], "id": "513e860c-11dc-4b55-9240-05ff188184a6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["If the recipient of personal data to a third country has notified the controller, pursuant to Clause 5(b) in the annex to the SCC Decision, that the legislation of the third country concerned does not allow him or her to comply with the standard clauses in that annex, it follows from Clause 12 in that annex that data that has already been transferred to that third country and the copies thereof must be returned or destroyed in their entirety. In any event, under Clause 6 in that annex, breach of those standard clauses will result in a right for the person concerned to receive compensation for the damage suffered."], "id": "2cf3ad03-ba56-49e2-a391-774fed2d63aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["That would, in turn, also render meaningless one of the main functions of the Board \u2013 a body established by the GDPR \u2013 composed of the head of one supervisory authority of each Member State and of the European Supervisor. One of the Board\u2019s task is precisely that of monitoring and ensuring the correct application of the GDPR where disagreement between different supervisory authorities arises. In those cases, the Board acts as a dispute settlement forum and decision-making body. Were the interpretation defended by the DPA and some governments to be followed, the mechanism set out in Article 65 of the GDPR could be entirely sidelined: each authority could go its own way, bypassing the Board."], "id": "771ebe69-c81b-427e-b57e-053d0403d3c7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The challenges posed to EU law by the extraterritoriality of certain legislation should also be raised with acuteness in the forthcoming years in an area dear to the Court, namely that of personal . Indeed, the US Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act 2018, which amended the 1986 Stored Communications Act, gives American law-enforcement authorities the power to request data stored by most major cloud providers, even if stored outside the United States. However, the data-storage market is largely dominated by US companies, at more than 85%."], "id": "bb31bfe3-50c1-4057-be80-d3c9e19530fa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["By contrast, in the case of a Commission decision adopting standard clauses, such as the SCC Decision, in so far as such a decision does not refer to a third country, a territory or one or more specific sectors in a third country, it cannot be inferred from Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of the GDPR that the Commission is required, before adopting such a decision, to assess the adequacy of the level of protection ensured by the third countries to which personal data could be transferred pursuant to such clauses."], "id": "ec349ea2-833b-4fd4-8e5c-46537af11176", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Which may have been one of the motives why, for reasons of \u2018commonsense and justice alike\u2019, the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (United Kingdom) held that the act of anonymising personal data does not itself qualify as \u2018processing\u2019 under the UK Act 1998. See judgment of 21 December 1999 in Regina v Department of Health, Ex Parte Source Informatics Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 3011 at [45]."], "id": "258a89d1-f984-4e67-b6be-7f8cb1fc08f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Mr Schrems brought an action against the decision rejecting his complaint before the High Court, which considered that, although Mr Schrems had not formally contested the validity of the \u2018safe harbour\u2019 decision, his complaint impugned, in reality, the legality of the regime established by that decision. In those circumstances, the High Court referred a number of questions to the Court, seeking, in essence, to ascertain whether the authorities of the Member States responsible for (the \u2018supervisory authorities\u2019), when dealing with a complaint concerning the protection of the rights and freedoms of a person in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which have been transferred to a third State, are bound by the findings as to the adequacy of the level of protection afforded by that third State made by the Commission pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46, when the complainant disputes those findings."], "id": "13d38f8d-e557-4285-bca1-bfea694020b6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["This makes the present case an almost classic case in the sense that it is predominantly set in the offline-world and involves a vertical relationship between a State and an individual, placing it seamlessly within a line of cases which have reached the Court since the seminal Stauder judgment, arguably the first case on data protection au sens large."], "id": "830218c6-f332-4838-9968-2b1bee12d114", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Since by their inherently contractual nature standard clauses cannot bind the public authorities of third countries, as is clear from paragraph 125 above, but that Article 44, Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of the GDPR, interpreted in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter, require that the level of protection of natural persons guaranteed by that regulation is not undermined, it may prove necessary to supplement the guarantees contained in those standard data protection clauses. In that regard, recital 109 of the regulation states that \u2018the possibility for the controller \u2026 to use standard data-protection clauses adopted by the Commission \u2026 should [not] prevent [it] \u2026 from adding other clauses or additional safeguards\u2019 and states, in particular, that the controller \u2018should be encouraged to provide additional safeguards \u2026 that supplement standard [data] protection clauses\u2019."], "id": "7238e141-609e-4084-b4b7-166e2844ff91", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Third, there is the scenario of parallel or subsequent administrative proceedings in different Member States, where the criminal nature of those proceedings is established on the basis of the Engel criteria. Those situations may arise within one and the same regulatory regime within the European Union (such as competition, , and so on), but may also arise with regard to the same facts which are pursued under different regulatory frameworks by different authorities. It will be in such situations, in particular, that the issue of identity of the protected legal interest is bound to arise. On the other hand, such situations are, in practical terms, frequently likely to fall short of the identity of the facts in view of the territoriality of the offence, as explained for instance in the context of competition law by Advocate General Kokott in her Opinion in Toshiba and developed further in my Opinion in the parallel case of Nordzucker."], "id": "2d2145dc-e5fa-4bf7-a49d-887b4eddb811", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["With the two notable exceptions in Articles 26 and 28 of the GDPR mentioned in the previous footnote, or, for instance, Article 19 of the GDPR. However, also with regard to those provisions, the regulatory inclusion of these categories could still be considered as one of , essentially ensuring that the controller cannot abdicate responsibility and escape liability either by sharing the data, or by outsourcing its processing."], "id": "5462f1ea-f59f-4b5e-b990-bdc21f5db8f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["That impression is confirmed by the order for reference. The referring court states that if Interpol, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not ensure that the personal data contained in a red notice are duly erased or corrected, because of the applicability of the principle ne bis in idem, doubts may arise regarding the adequacy of Interpol\u2019s rules under Directive 2016/680. That would ultimately lead to the question \u2013 in the view of the referring court \u2013 of whether Member States should refrain from cooperating with Interpol."], "id": "dcdaec72-fd66-4e7e-8af2-b87a65e25765", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Article 65(1)(a) of the GDPR, that article being entitled \u2018Dispute resolution by the Board\u2019, provides that, in order to ensure the correct and consistent application of the regulation in individual cases, the European Board (\u2018the Board\u2019) is to adopt a binding decision in, inter alia, the cases where a supervisory authority concerned has raised a relevant and reasoned objection to a draft decision of the lead authority or where the lead authority has rejected such an objection as being not relevant or reasoned."], "id": "03f1259b-92c5-42ac-a03e-00058ce3547e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Ireland claims further that, if the EU legislature had wanted the investigative body to be independent of all public bodies or any possible influence, as the Commission maintains, it could have expressed that condition, as was done in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281 p. 31) and in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1)."], "id": "a973cbcd-f826-4c64-a4c9-503a50eb4dae", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["8 For the purposes of implementing Regulation 2016/679, the Kingdom of the Netherlands adopted the wet houdende regels ter uitvoering van Verordening (EU) 2016/679 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 27 april 2016 betreffende de bescherming van natuurlijke personen in verband met de verwerking van persoonsgegevens en betreffende het vrije verkeer van die gegevens en tot intrekking van Richtlijn 95/46/EG (algemene verordening gegevensbescherming) (PbEU 2016, L 119) (Uitvoeringswet Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming) (Law laying down the rules for the implementation of Regulation 2016/679 (Law implementing the General Regulation)) of 16 May 2018 (Stb. 2018, No 144). Article 6 of that law entrusts the AP with the task of supervising compliance with Regulation 2016/679 in the Netherlands. None of the provisions of that law reproduces the exception provided for in Article 55(3) of Regulation 2016/679."], "id": "b5a7b7ab-3092-4ae1-899c-7a553b72f111", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Without prejudice to the law on the protection of industrial and commercial property, medicinal products for human use which have been authorised in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation shall benefit from an eight-year period of and a 10-year period of marketing protection, in which connection the latter period shall be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorisation holder obtains an authorisation for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorisation, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.\u2019"], "id": "3261e4a2-3aaf-40b4-90b0-b8b92118764e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["By its eighth question, the referring court wishes to know, in essence, whether Article 58(2)(f) and (j) of the GDPR must be interpreted as meaning that the competent supervisory authority is required to suspend or prohibit a transfer of personal data to a third country pursuant to standard clauses adopted by the Commission, if, in the view of that supervisory authority, those clauses are not or cannot be complied with in that third country and the protection of the data transferred that is required by EU law, in particular by Articles 45 and 46 of the GDPR and by the Charter, cannot be ensured, or as meaning that the exercise of those powers is limited to exceptional cases."], "id": "85a9dc57-a11f-4854-9ad2-25f23c4d7cc7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["42. For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that, where the conditions laid down by it are met, Article 49(3) of Decision 2007/533 by no means gives the competent authorities of the requested Member State the option to refuse to execute the action requested based on the alert. That provision in fact states that, if the requested Member State has evidence suggesting that an item of data is factually incorrect or has been unlawfully stored, that State must, through the exchange of supplementary information, inform the Member State that issued the alert thereof at the earliest opportunity (and not later than 10 days after the said evidence has come to its attention) and, in the event of disagreement with the latter State, the requested Member State must submit the matter to the European Supervisor (EDPS) so that that body can act as mediator, jointly with the national supervisory authorities. In other words, the competent authorities of the requested Member State are required simply to inform the Member State that issued the alert that the data are incorrect or have been unlawfully stored, with the latter State remaining ultimately responsible for the correction or deletion of those data."], "id": "50d7196c-fb17-4521-b5ce-44c798ab1d56", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["III. For the purposes of investigating, detecting and prosecuting criminal offences or a failure to fulfil an obligation laid down in Article L. 336\u20113 of the Code de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 intellectuelle (Intellectual Property Code) or for the purposes of preventing breaches of automated data processing systems as provided for and punishable under Articles 323\u20111 to 323\u20113\u20111 of the Criminal Code, and for the sole purpose of making information available, as necessary, to the judicial authority or high authority mentioned in Article L. 331\u201112 of the Intellectual Property Code or to the national authority for the security of information systems mentioned in Article L. 2321\u20111 of the Code de la d\u00e9fense (Defence Code), operations designed to erase or render anonymous certain categories of technical data may be deferred for a maximum period of one year. A decree adopted in the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat (Council of State, France) following consultation of the Commission nationale de l\u2019informatique et des libert\u00e9s (French Authority) shall, within the limits laid down in point VI, determine the categories of data involved and the period for which they are to be retained, depending on the business of the operators, the nature of the communications and the methods of offsetting any identifiable and specific additional costs associated with the services provided for these purposes by operators at the request of the State."], "id": "8e36d21a-4b0f-4cb1-81b0-b77b8b7380ce", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that, based on its wording, Article 8 of the Charter (\u2018person\u2019, \u2018personal data\u2019) would be applicable here. According to the case-law of the Court, however, in line with the wording of the secondary legislation on , only natural persons fall, in principle, within the scope of the fundamental right to data protection under Article 8 of the Charter. Legal persons, on the other hand, should be able to claim the protection of \u2018personal data\u2019 under Article 8 of the Charter only in so far as their official title identifies a natural person. The question of whether this is the case here can be left open, as companies may be able to rely on a right under Article 7 of the Charter."], "id": "715b0e80-c4f7-471e-9c70-423a2ecda997", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["At the times relevant to this investigation, all disclosure requests had to be approved in the first instance by a superintendent (or an inspector acting in that capacity) and were then sent to be processed by the TLU. Investigators were directed to include sufficient detail in the request to enable an informed decision to be made, and to bear in mind that the chief superintendent might have to justify the decision later in court or to the designated High Court judge. The TLU and the detective chief superintendent are required to verify the legality, proportionality and necessity of disclosure requests sought by members of An Garda Siochana. Applications deemed not to comply with the requirements of the law or of internal garda protocols were returned for clarification or additional information. Under a Memorandum of Understanding issued in May 2011, service providers would not process requests for call related data that did not come through this process. The TLU is also subject to audit by the Commissioner.\u2019"], "id": "a116a6f5-70f1-445a-8db6-841e40b55eb5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Article 55(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation) must be interpreted to mean that the practice of the disclosure of procedural documents to a journalist for the purpose of better covering a public hearing is carried out by courts \u2018acting in their judicial capacity\u2019."], "id": "d35b0617-3306-4566-b7a4-af7eda6ab98f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In line with the fundamental values on which the Union is founded, in particular the protection of human rights, the Commission should, in its assessment of the third country, or of a territory or specified sector within a third country, take into account how a particular third country respects the rule of law, access to justice as well as international human rights norms and standards and its general and sectoral law, including legislation concerning public security, defence and national security as well as public order and criminal law. The adoption of an adequacy decision with regard to a territory or a specified sector in a third country should take into account clear and objective criteria, such as specific processing activities and the scope of applicable legal standards and legislation in force in the third country. The third country should offer guarantees ensuring an adequate level of protection essentially equivalent to that ensured within the Union, in particular where personal data are processed in one or several specific sectors. In particular, the third country should ensure effective independent supervision and should provide for cooperation mechanisms with the Member States\u2019 data protection authorities, and the data subjects should be provided with effective and enforceable rights and effective administrative and judicial redress."], "id": "d08f622e-aa6b-4ecb-b5ec-4d898bbb9fea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["59. That provision, under the heading \u2018Data protection\u2019 and in connection once again with the \u2018processing of personal data\u2019: \u2013 reaffirms the right, and at the same time the duty, of competent authorities to carry out \u2018their tasks for the purposes of this Regulation in accordance with the national laws, regulations or administrative provisions transposing Directive 95/46/EC\u2019; \u2013 does not mention the obligation to retain data (24) imposed on electronic communications undertakings, but simply makes a reference to Directive 95/46 (25) when it comes to ."], "id": "3f614dda-0c9e-4784-9e84-e1407c9ea64c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["A data subject intending to enter into a contractual relationship for the provision of telecommunication services with an undertaking does not give his or her \u2018consent\u2019, that is, does not indicate his or her \u2018specific and informed\u2019 and \u2018freely given\u2019 wishes, within the meaning of Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and of Article 4(11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation), to that undertaking when he or she is required to state, in handwriting, on an otherwise standardised contract, that he or she refuses to consent to the photocopying and storage of his or her ID documents."], "id": "5e6394ec-a74a-4386-9ae7-1497a89b7025", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["34. That court emphasises that the Federation\u2019s submissions relate only to the abstract supervision of the presentation of the App Centre by Facebook Ireland in the light of the law on and that the Federation has not claimed that there has been an infringement of the rights of an identified or identifiable natural person, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Regulation 2016/679."], "id": "627b1b28-fcd4-4def-a32f-bb44bae4d57f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["That said, I do not think that analogies with the Court\u2019s case-law on the field of application of the Charter should be drawn. That would be too restrictive and would be counter to the objective pursued by Article 16 TFEU and by the GDPR. Indeed, the logic of the Charter is wholly different from that of the GDPR: the Charter seeks to domesticate the exercise of power by the EU institutions and Member States when they operate within the scope of EU law and, conversely, provide a shield for individuals to assert their respective rights. By contrast, the protection of personal data is more than a fundamental right. As is demonstrated by Article 16 TFEU, constitutes an EU policy field in its own right. The very purpose of the GDPR is that it is to apply to any form of processing of personal data, regardless of the subject matter involved \u2013 and this, incidentally, whether carried out by Member States or individuals. Interpreting the terms of Article 2(2)(a) of the GDPR restrictively would completely frustrate that objective. The GDPR, which was intended to be a tiger for data protection, would turn out to be a domestic kitten."], "id": "32f839c4-e04d-45b8-ab29-15ee41cb6e06", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation applies to the transfer of personal data for commercial purposes by an economic operator established in a Member State to another economic operator established in a third country, irrespective of whether, at the time of that transfer or thereafter, that data is liable to be processed by the authorities of the third country in question for the purposes of public security, defence and State security."], "id": "2394a537-c582-4170-ab0e-d19d3ff0884a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, I fear, however, that matters are less clear for Uploaded. In that regard, on the one hand, I do not concur with Elsevier that the fact that an operator allows users of its platform to upload files \u2018anonymously\u2019 there shows its intention to facilitate infringements. It is clear from the documents before the Court that in order to upload a file to Uploaded it is necessary to create an account, providing a first name, surname and email address. Elsevier thus criticises the fact that Cyando does not check the accuracy of the information provided by the user by means of an identity verification or authentication system. Although the possibility for anyone to use the internet and online services without an identity check can indeed be misused by ill-intentioned individuals for wrongful activities, I consider that that possibility is, however, protected, above all, by such fundamental norms as the right to privacy, freedom of expression and conscience and , particularly in EU law and international law. Identity verification or authentication systems thus may be used, in my view, only for specific services in certain circumstances laid down in law."], "id": "a52662a2-0d13-4d51-a7ee-f14f8e0ff7f9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["See European Commission, First report on the implementation of the Directive (95/46/EC) of 15 May 2003, COM(2003) 265 final, pp. 12 and 13, and its Annex \u2018Analysis and impact study on the implementation of Directive EC 95/46 in Member States\u2019, p. 40. See also European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Access to data protection remedies in EU Member States \u2013 Report, 2012, especially pp. 20 to 22."], "id": "1b20c18d-db10-4b96-8566-af7719d5a4f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["that after assessment of the requirements of the applicable law, the security measures are appropriate to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data over a network, and against all other unlawful forms of processing, and that these measures ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks presented by the processing and the nature of the data to be protected having regard to the state of the art and the cost of their implementation;"], "id": "3a9d7e50-1cbb-425f-bc9e-52d4b77bebc0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Similar concepts are to be found in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. That regulation contains a number of exclusions from its scope or states that data processing is lawful with regard to \u2018courts acting in a judicial capacity\u2019. Thus, the processing of certain categories of personal data, including sensitive data, is permissible where \u2018processing is necessary \u2026 whenever courts are acting in their judicial capacity\u2019 (Article 9(2)(f) thereof). Similarly, a officer must be designated in all cases where processing is carried out by a public authority or body, \u2018except for courts acting in their judicial capacity\u2019 (Article 37(1)(a) thereof). In the same way, supervisory authorities entrusted with monitoring the application of Regulation 2016/679 are not competent to supervise processing operations of \u2018courts acting in their judicial capacity\u2019 (Article 55(3) of that regulation). These examples clearly suggest that the same activities would fall within the scope of that regulation if carried out in an \u2018administrative capacity\u2019."], "id": "f63179ee-44d1-4269-986f-1619c183ed58", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["As illustrated by the foregoing case of Commission v Hungary, involving the retirement age of judges, along with Fuchs and K\u00f6hler, the Court has deemed legitimate certain objectives relating to the alignment of retirement age within the specific framework set out in Directive 2000/78 in respect of the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of age. However, in Commission v Hungary, involving the pre-term removal of the supervisor, the Court did not allow such objectives to diminish the independence of national supervisory authorities under EU law. That reasoning is just as compelling in the case of the independence of judges. It may also be inferred from the Court\u2019s consideration of judicial independence as \u2018essential\u2019 to effective judicial protection under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU."], "id": "0428b23b-3bcb-406a-91ae-0ba4993eceae", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be observed that the applicant does not appear to be relying on rights relating to the protection of personal data and that she does not take issue with Facebook Ireland for having \u2018carried out\u2019 an illegal processing of her data, as her claim is based on the general provisions of civil law. Nor does the referring court rely on the legal instruments of EU law relevant to . It relies only on Directive 2000/31. However, it follows from Article 1(5)(b) thereof that that directive is not to apply to questions relating to information society services covered by the directives concerning the protection of personal data."], "id": "ff4ca69e-dd09-44e2-8e69-e4e9d15d81a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["With respect to Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46, the Court has consistently held as much, see judgment of 10 July 2018, Jehovan todistajat (C\u201125/17, EU:C:2018:551, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). See also Sobotta, Chr., in E. Grabitz, M. Hilf and M. Nettesheim, Das Recht der Europ\u00e4ischen Union, 71. EL., updated August 2020, C.H. Beck, Munich, Art. 16 AEUV, point 22, who points to the wide scope ratione materiae of the EU regime."], "id": "8a823842-dbdb-40a4-8a30-d5f8ad5ef1de", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, that provision lays down three cumulative conditions so that the processing of personal data is lawful, namely, first, the pursuit of a legitimate interest by the data controller or by a third party; second, the need to process personal data for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued; and third, that the interests or freedoms and fundamental rights of the person concerned by the do not take precedence (see, to that effect, as regards Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46, judgment of 4 May 2017, R\u012bgas satiksme, C\u201113/16, EU:C:2017:336, paragraph 28)."], "id": "f2ee6cee-5ace-4825-952a-c77ca0391b5c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In order to answer that question, I take the view that it is pertinent to take into account two branches of the Court\u2019s case-law, namely, on the one hand, the case-law relating to the independence of national supervisory authorities and, on the other, the case-law relating to the independence of the issuing judicial authority in the context of the European Arrest Warrant."], "id": "3b8d05f0-6bf6-456f-9940-15991c985656", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with Article 60(7) of that regulation, it is the responsibility of the lead supervisory authority, as a general rule, to adopt a decision with respect to the cross-border processing concerned, to give notice of that decision to the main establishment or the single establishment of the controller or processor, as the case may be, and to inform the other supervisory authorities concerned and the European Board of the decision in question, including a summary of the relevant facts and grounds."], "id": "6c628859-1461-413b-9299-084ff6b1fcbe", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The requirement of consent of a data subject is a central feature underlying EU law. It features in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, where it is stipulated in Article 8 that data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by the law. Seen in a wider context, the concept of consent allows the data subject concerned to decide for him or herself on the legitimacy of restrictions to on his or her right to the protection of personal data."], "id": "ba0ebddb-4df1-49d3-a2f2-2faacee42bbb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the eighth question is that Article 58(2)(f) and (j) of the GDPR must be interpreted as meaning that, unless there is a valid Commission adequacy decision, the competent supervisory authority is required to suspend or prohibit a transfer of data to a third country pursuant to standard clauses adopted by the Commission, if, in the view of that supervisory authority and in the light of all the circumstances of that transfer, those clauses are not or cannot be complied with in that third country and the protection of the data transferred that is required by EU law, in particular by Articles 45 and 46 of the GDPR and by the Charter, cannot be ensured by other means, where the controller or a processor has not itself suspended or put an end to the transfer."], "id": "6718f2c5-bf08-4f7c-8e3f-c5c5a2d082d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of (i) Article 4(7) and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), and (ii) Article 267 TFEU, read together with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "25498b54-16f0-4fe5-a9cc-2f213796d12a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Regulation), is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover situations of processing of personal data relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences as provided for by a national law such as Article 141 (2) of the Ce\u013cu satiksmes likums (the Law on motoring)."], "id": "0d31f722-c306-4817-9c32-d51ab7f9d574", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["See especially recitals 4 and 73 of Regulation 2016/679. More generally, see Feiler, L., Forg\u00f3, N., Weig, M., The EU General Regulation (GDPR) \u2014 A Commentary, GLP, 2018, pp. 138 to 140; Moore, D., \u2018Comment to Article 23 \u2014 Restrictions\u2019, in Kuner, C., Bygrave, L., Docksey, C., Drechsler, L. (eds), The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) \u2014 A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 543 to 554; and Ehmann, E., Selmayer, M. (eds.), Datenschutz-Grundverordnung: Kommentar. 2nd edn, C.H.Beck, 2018, pp. 467 to 469."], "id": "56b55493-a11f-486a-84c6-74290223a397", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["75. For present purposes it is therefore irrelevant that the arrangements for retained data provided for in the German legislation: (a) provide effective safeguards to protect those data; (b) place rigorous and effective limits on access conditions, restricting the circle of people who can access the data; and (c) allow the retained data to be used solely for the purposes of investigating serious offences and preventing specific risks to life or a person\u2019s freedom or to the security of the State."], "id": "b52390e0-5e39-4859-b1da-ea7018516ba6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["That said, it must be emphasised that the exercise of the power of a Member State\u2019s supervisory authority to bring actions before the courts of that State cannot be ruled out where, after the mutual assistance of the lead supervisory authority has been sought, under Article 61 of Regulation 2016/679, the latter does not provide the former with the requested information. In that situation, under Article 61(8) of that regulation, the supervisory authority concerned may adopt a provisional measure on the territory of its own Member State and, if it considers that there is an urgent need for the adoption of final measures, that authority may, in accordance with Article 66(2) of that regulation, request an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision from the European Board. Further, under Article 64(2) of that regulation, a supervisory authority may request that any matter that is of general application or that produces effects in more than one Member State be examined by the European Data Protection Board with a view to obtaining an opinion, in particular where a competent supervisory authority does not comply with the obligations for mutual assistance imposed on it by Article 61 of that regulation. Following the adoption of such an opinion or such a decision, and provided that the European Data Protection Board approves, after taking account of all the relevant circumstances, the supervisory authority concerned must be able to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the rules on the protection of the rights of natural persons as regards the processing of personal data contained in Regulation 2016/679 and, for that purpose, exercise the power conferred on it by Article 58(5) of that regulation."], "id": "1153a6b7-a337-418c-991b-f7322f04ebdd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["that the processing, including the transfer itself, of the personal data has been and will continue to be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the applicable law (and, where applicable, has been notified to the relevant authorities of the Member State where the data exporter is established) and does not violate the relevant provisions of that State;"], "id": "6dd1ed1f-4779-40c8-9a3a-863689b11b00", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court adds that, during the period concerned by the criminal investigation brought against G.D., all the requests for access were required to be approved in the first place by a superintendent or inspector acting in that capacity, before they were sent to the TLU to be processed, and that the investigators were directed to include sufficient detail in their requests for access so that an informed decision could be taken. In addition, the TLU and the head of the security and intelligence section were required to examine the legality, necessity and proportionality of requests for access, taking into account the fact that that head could be called upon to answer for his or her decision before the judge designated by the High Court. Furthermore, the TLU is also subject to audit by the Commissioner (Ireland)."], "id": "6e2631eb-93e8-4df8-b400-b33e8b6ca114", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["The guiding principle at the basis of EU law is that of a self-determined decision of an individual who is capable of making choices about the use and processing of his or her data. It is the requirement of consent which enables him or her to make this choice and which at the same time protects him in situations which are by their very nature asymmetrical. Only when consent is freely given, specific and informed does it meet the test of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679."], "id": "eb38a7a7-0d5d-44af-9f97-1fba367e4bd3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In any event, however, the legal basis provided for must logically cover the specific purpose and type of processing carried out for that purpose. How exactly it will go about that is a matter of specific adaptation provisions adopted by the Member State or the Union under Article 6(3) of the GDPR. In general, the more generalised, larger and permanent the data transfers, the more robust, detailed and express the legislative basis must be since such data transfers represent a greater interference with the safeguarding of . By contrast, the more discreet and limited the disclosure requests \u2013 usually with regard to one or a few data subjects only, or even with regard to a limited amount of data \u2013 the more likely those requests can be carried out at the level of individual administrative requests, with the legislative empowering clause remaining rather broad and generic."], "id": "0ce8de2e-8781-492e-80db-3a42820916b3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["A more cautious approach to the concepts of \u2018personal data\u2019 and \u2018processing\u2019 had also previously been suggested by the Article 29 Working Party. It noted that \u2018the mere fact that a certain situation may be considered as involving \u201cthe processing of personal data\u201d in the sense of the definition does not alone determine that this situation is to be subject to the rules of the [Directive 95/46], in particular pursuant to Article 3 thereof\u2019. It also emphasised that \u2018the scope of the data protection rules should not be overstretched\u2019. It even rather wisely foresaw that \u2018a mechanistic application of every single provision of the Directive\u2019 could lead to \u2018excessively burdensome or perhaps even absurd consequences\u2019."], "id": "c1f3261e-d9f1-4a68-93c9-ad0f4fc9ae5c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to Article 46(1) of the GDPR, in the absence of a Commission adequacy decision, it is for the controller or processor established in the European Union to provide, inter alia, appropriate safeguards. Recitals 108 and 114 of the GDPR confirm that, where the Commission has not adopted a decision on the adequacy of the level of in a third country, the controller or, where relevant, the processor \u2018should take measures to compensate for the lack of data protection in a third country by way of appropriate safeguards for the data subject\u2019 and that \u2018those safeguards should ensure compliance with data protection requirements and the rights of the data subjects appropriate to processing within the Union, including the availability of enforceable data subject rights and of effective legal remedies \u2026 in the Union or in a third country\u2019."], "id": "277160a4-8df4-4b4e-9aba-84d34769a77c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["25 Directive repealed by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 (General Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1). I should recall that, in the judgment in La Quadrature du Net, paragraph 210, the Court held that, \u2018\u2026 as is the case for Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, the power conferred on Member States by Article 23(1) of Regulation 2016/679 may be exercised only in accordance with the requirement of proportionality, according to which derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary (see, by analogy, with regard to Directive 95/46, judgment of 7 November 2013, IPI, C\u2011473/12, EU:C:2013:715, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited)\u2019."], "id": "079936f9-bb26-4f08-8118-536c4cfd0c81", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Data Protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the initial Commission proposal, Article 7(1) read as follows: \u2018The controller shall bear the burden of proof for the data subject\u2019s consent to the processing of their personal data for specified purposes\u2019. See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Regulation), COM(2012) 11 final, p. 45."], "id": "8cc0a6fe-20f4-45d7-b6d0-5b839e8ea0cc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "data protection", "masked_sentences": ["13. The internet platform Facebook includes an area called \u2018App-Zentrum\u2019 (\u2018App Centre\u2019) on which Facebook Ireland, inter alia, makes free games supplied by third parties available to its users. When accessing certain games in the App Centre on 26 November 2012, the user could see certain information under the \u2018Sofort spielen\u2019 (\u2018Play now\u2019) button. It follows, in essence, from that information that the use of the app in question enabled the company having supplied the games to obtain certain personal data and authorised it to post, on behalf of the user, certain information, such as his or her score. That use entailed acceptance by the user of the general terms and conditions of the app and of its policy. In addition, in the case of the game Scrabble, it is stated that the app is authorised to post the status, photos and other information on behalf of the user."], "id": "db3f2f69-287f-4287-8908-f7e1a4b3a975", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, the right of access to a lawyer throughout the confiscation proceedings clearly entails the right of that third party to be heard in the context of those proceedings, which, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, guarantees the holder of that right the opportunity to make known his or her views effectively (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 July 2017, Sacko, C\u2011348/16, EU:C:2017:591, paragraph 34), which is confirmed by recital 33 of Directive 2014/42, according to which the specific safeguards and judicial remedies in order to guarantee the preservation of the of third parties, in the implementation of that directive, includes the right to be heard for third parties who claim that they are the owner of the property concerned."], "id": "5244b6b6-99e2-4b37-a087-941a2d8cd73d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigenda OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34), in the light of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "8bc2d13e-1405-4708-8afb-50a9eb7890f4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["18. Veridos appealed against the decision of 25 June 2020 before the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), which has referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018(1) Is Article 56 of Directive [2014/24] in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive [2009/81] in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that, where it is objectively impossible to apply the criterion laid down in national law for the evaluation of an abnormally low tender and in the absence of a different criterion selected by the contracting authority and announced in advance, a contracting authority is not required to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists? (2) Is Article 56 of Directive [2014/24] in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive [2009/81] in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority is required to verify whether abnormally low tenders exist only if there is a suspicion regarding any tender; or, conversely, is the contracting authority required to always ensure that the received tenders are genuine, and state the relevant reasons? (3) Does such a requirement apply to the contracting authority if only two tenders have been received during the procedure for the award of a public contract? (4) Is Article 47 of the [Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)] to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority\u2019s assessment as regards a lack of suspicion that an abnormally low tender exists, or, respectively, that contracting authority\u2019s conviction that the first-ranked tenderer has submitted a genuine tender, is subject to judicial review? (5) Should the previous question be answered in the affirmative: is Article 47 of the [Charter] to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority in a procedure for the award of a public contract which has not verified whether an abnormally low tender exists is required to provide justification and reasons as to why there is no suspicion that an abnormally low tender has been submitted, in other words, that the first-ranked tender is genuine?\u2019 III. Procedure before the Court of Justice"], "id": "3442b2d4-2bdd-4eeb-9c51-3dd5638c4b41", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, having regard to the rules of criminal procedure, the referring court notes that it is not clear whether the unequal treatment of a person such as VA, with a disability such as blindness, in the pursuit of the activity of juror, is lawful in the light of the provisions contained in the UN Convention, the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), and Directive 2000/78, which seek to ensure equal treatment in employment and occupation for people with disabilities."], "id": "cef54ed1-6a52-4345-8e2e-0640548af3b8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court, Latvia)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Article 49 TFEU \u2013 Freedom of establishment \u2013 Article 56 TFEU \u2013 Freedom to provide services \u2013 Restriction \u2013 National legislation requiring institutions of higher education to promote and develop the national official language \u2013 Justification \u2013 Proportionality \u2013 Article 4(2) TEU \u2013 National identity \u2013 Article 13 of the Charter of of the European Union \u2013 Academic freedom)"], "id": "b8c69d1d-acbd-4840-8cbe-ddaaac3b2b7c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Where those requirements are met, the executing judicial authority may therefore be satisfied that the decision to issue a European arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is based on a national procedure that is subject to review by a court and that the person in respect of whom that national arrest warrant was issued has had the benefit of all safeguards appropriate to the adoption of that type of decision, inter alia those derived from the and fundamental legal principles referred to in Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584."], "id": "37d97472-103e-4c2a-ba1c-350d5e0f3e03", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC under which, in legal proceedings pending in other Member States, the courts must, without any further formalities, recognise the effects of a Decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State that is intended retrospectively to change the legal framework that existed at the time the proceedings were commenced and that renders ineffective any judgments that do not accord with the provisions of the new decision, compatible with the fundamental right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter of of the EU, the principle of the rule of law in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and the general principle of legal certainty?\u2019"], "id": "60cb4e8d-78f5-4155-be32-56cf1a8090f9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective labour agreement under which, in order to determine whether the threshold of hours worked granting entitlement to overtime pay is reached, the hours corresponding to the period of paid annual leave taken by the worker are not to be taken into account as hours worked."], "id": "ab69c6f7-bc80-4ebb-bfe1-9027fccd1d8d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Public procurement \u2013 Directive 89/665/EEC \u2013 Article 1 \u2013 Right to an effective remedy \u2013 Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union \u2013 Obligation for Member States to provide for a review procedure \u2013 Access to review procedures \u2013 Action for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract \u2013 Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer \u2013 Case-law of the Constitutional Court limiting the cases where an appeal in cassation is possible \u2013 Article 267 TFEU)"], "id": "2011f861-eb52-4365-868f-b5fc2d51084d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, inconsistencies in the case-law on the basis of which an individual\u2019s rights might be subjected to limitations would lead to a situation in which that individual would be unable to arrive at an unambiguous knowledge and understanding of how the limitation which has been imposed on him will work. For an individual, that mechanism plays a key role in guaranteeing the legitimacy of the limitation of his and in enabling him to contest that limitation before the competent authorities. Thus, in circumstances such as those in the present case, an individual criticising the interpretation recognised by the court of first instance in its case-law will know in advance that the court of second instance, despite sharing his criticism, will nonetheless endorse the initial decision by recourse to the interpretation established in its own case-law."], "id": "39969820-15e2-4090-bfe9-84cb86154def", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 (\u2018the framework agreement\u2019), which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), and the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "b1455e15-8f11-4b38-b367-0cac9098a906", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["By its fourth, fifth and tenth questions, the referring court seeks essentially to ascertain whether, having regard to the facts which it has established with respect to United States law, appropriate safeguards are provided for in that country against interferences by the United States intelligence authorities with the exercise of the to respect for private life, to the protection of personal data and to effective judicial protection."], "id": "b3fc3f35-0cc1-444e-b705-67feced13702", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, by its first and second questions, Tribunalul Bucure\u015fti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania) refers to Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter, taken in isolation or read in conjunction with Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46. The Court has made clear that the assessment of the condition laid down in that provision, relating to the existence of and freedoms of the data subject which override the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, necessitates a balancing of the opposing rights and interests concerned which depends on the individual circumstances of the particular case in question, and in the context of which account must be taken of the significance of the data subject\u2019s rights arising from Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter (judgment of 24 November 2011, Asociaci\u00f3n Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Cr\u00e9dito, C\u2011468/10 and C\u2011469/10, EU:C:2011:777, paragraph 40). It follows that Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter must not, in the present case, be applied in isolation."], "id": "8c104a63-4485-42c0-b807-7043376c41c4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Telecommunications \u2013 Processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector \u2013 Directive 2002/58/EC \u2013 Article 15(1) \u2013 Article 4(2) TEU \u2013 Charter of of the European Union \u2013 Articles 6, 7, 8, and 11 and Article 52(1) \u2013 General and indiscriminate retention of connection data for the purposes of prosecuting serious criminal offences or preventing a specific risk to national security)"], "id": "2df1b750-40c0-4613-a9f6-b1449a0a9cc4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["In the interests of comprehensiveness, it seems to me to be useful to make clear that, where the application of the \u2018actual centre of interests of the child\u2019 test does not in the particular case serve as a basis for the general jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State in a situation such as that in issue in the main proceedings, the protection of the best interests of the child guaranteed in Article 24 of the Charter and of the enshrined in Articles 4 and 6 of the Charter would not justify any different conclusion."], "id": "44d8990d-7290-4229-a6fe-c94edeef10a3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from settled case-law that the principle of equal treatment is a general principle of EU law, now enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of of the European Union, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see judgment of 9 March 2017, Milkova, C\u2011406/15, EU:C:2017:198, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited, and Opinion 1/17 (EU-Canada CET Agreement) of 30 April 2019, EU:C:2019:341, paragraph 176 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "99ec4928-d574-4d1d-a498-8d929c6d981a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["213 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the first question in Cases C\u2011357/19 and C\u2011840/19 and the first and fourth questions in Case C\u2011811/19 must be answered to the effect that Article 325(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the PFI Convention, and Decision 2006/298 are to be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which judgments in matters of corruption and VAT fraud, which were not delivered, at first instance, by panels specialised in such matters or, on appeal, by panels all the members of which were selected by drawing lots, are rendered absolutely null and void, such that the cases of corruption and VAT fraud concerned must, as the case may be further to an extraordinary appeal against final judgments, be re-examined at first and/or second instance, where the application of those national rules or that national practice is capable of giving rise to a systemic risk of acts constituting serious fraud affecting the European Union\u2019s financial interests or corruption in general going unpunished. The obligation to ensure that such offences are subject to criminal penalties that are effective and act as a deterrent does not exempt the referring court from verifying the necessary observance of the guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter, but does not allow that court to apply a national standard of protection of fundamental rights entailing such a systemic risk of impunity. The second and third questions in Cases C\u2011357/19, C\u2011379/19, C\u2011811/19 and C\u2011840/19 and the single question in Case C\u2011547/19"], "id": "8d410cad-4cf7-41ac-aaf5-918f81155738", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["In its defence, the Republic of Poland contends, inter alia, that Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter are not applicable to disciplinary cases concerning national judges in the absence of a situation where EU law is being implemented for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter. In particular, it argues that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU does not constitute the source of of the defence or the right to be heard within a reasonable time. That Member State considers that the disciplinary cases conducted on the basis of the procedural provisions challenged by the Commission are of a purely internal nature and that, in defining those procedures, the Polish authorities have not regulated fields covered by Union law for the purposes of that provision, read in conjunction with Article 5 TEU and Articles 3 and 4 TFEU."], "id": "3bfd0e6c-42b8-4491-a1be-6e34b311c77a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Although, in terms of form, the appellant only relied in his application on infringement of the right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of of the European Union and Regulation No 1049/2001, in terms of content it clearly follows from his line of argument that he was also complaining that OLAF had refused to allow him to inspect the investigation files because it wrongly failed to consider him to be a person concerned. For example, the appellant stated in his application that a person must have access to the file of a procedure that directly concerns that person; that, within the framework of his rights of defence, he has a right of access to the documents in the investigation file that directly affected his rights; that, in particular, every decision concerning his role as president of Teleorman County Council must be made accessible to him; and that, moreover, all manner of correspondence between OLAF and the Romanian anti-corruption authority concerning him has a material impact on his rights."], "id": "bb275040-5dad-4b0f-bc52-a03368016eac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, according to Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of of the European Union, the administration has an obligation to give reasons for its decisions. That duty to state reasons requires, according to settled case-law, that, in accordance with Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU, the reasoning followed by the authority which adopted the measure must be disclosed in a clear and unequivocal fashion so as, on the one hand, to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and thus enable them to defend their rights and, on the other, to enable the court to exercise its power of review (judgments of 25 February 2003, Strabag Benelux v Council, T\u2011183/00, EU:T:2003:36, paragraph 55; of 24 April 2013, Evropa\u00efki Dynamiki v Commission, T\u201132/08, not published, EU:T:2013:213, paragraph 37; and of 16 May 2019, Transtec v Commission, T\u2011228/18, EU:T:2019:336, paragraph 91)."], "id": "e6a8acf8-f17a-4f1b-8113-50fdb51bad0e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["EU law, in particular Article 34(5) of Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the Member States to provide for an appeal procedure against decisions refusing a visa for the purpose of studies, within the meaning of that directive, the procedural rules of which are a matter for the legal order of each Member State, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and that procedure must, at a certain stage, guarantee a judicial appeal. It is for the referring court to establish whether the application for a national long-term visa for the purpose of studies that is at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of that directive."], "id": "2506b532-684d-4cf0-a257-31421392b4bc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["None of those three constitutes an unfettered prerogative, as each of them must be considered in relation to its function in society (see, regarding the right to an effective remedy, judgment of 18 March 2010, Alassini and Others, C\u2011317/08 to C\u2011320/08, EU:C:2010:146, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited, and, concerning the rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, judgment of 16 July 2020, Facebook Ireland and Schrems, C\u2011311/18, EU:C:2020:559, paragraph 172 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "bce53023-a3df-4456-9fb5-53702bdc8bc8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["That said, I am of the view that, in the absence of rules to that effect in Framework Decision 2002/584, the practical arrangements concerning the surrendered person\u2019s exercise of the right to be heard should be established by an agreement between the competent judicial authorities of the executing Member State and of the issuing Member State, in compliance with the principle of procedural autonomy, in view of the fact that the executing judicial authority is competent to adopt a decision on the additional consent requested and that any arrangement between the judicial authorities concerned must respect the of the surrendered person and, in particular, the right to effective judicial protection."], "id": "53eeffe0-3225-4bdb-86eb-05fd070da419", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Judgment in Aranyosi, paragraph 78. In a different context (the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility), but in the same vein, the Court has held that \u2018the systems for recognition and enforcement of judgments handed down in a Member State which are established by [Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1)] are based on the principle of mutual trust between Member States in the fact that their respective national legal systems are capable of providing an equivalent and effective protection of , recognised at EU level, in particular, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights\u2019 (judgment of 22 December 2010, Aguirre Zarraga, C\u2011491/10 PPU, EU:C:2010:828, paragraph 70)."], "id": "74667025-8e07-429c-b316-2fdf34a850df", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["19 In that regard, after stating that, from its point of view, Framework Decision 2002/584 and, consequently, the Charter are applicable in the present case, the referring court explains that it must be satisfied, in particular, before issuing a European arrest warrant, that the protection of the of the person concerned is guaranteed. To that end, it seeks to ascertain, first, whether a final decision concluding criminal proceedings is covered by the principle ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter, in particular where such a decision was taken on the basis of an amnesty and subsequently set aside as a result of a legislative measure revoking that amnesty, without a specific court ruling or judicial procedure."], "id": "83031762-d3ca-42f6-8419-241a8bf59554", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["7 The appellant claims that the first argument raises an issue that is significant with respect to the consistency and development of EU law. In that regard, the appellant argues that, following the annulment of the decision of 1 September 2009 of the Second Board of Appeal by the Court in the judgment of 10 November 2016, Simba Toys v EUIPO (C\u201130/15 P, EU:C:2016:849), the Board of Appeal adopted a new decision (\u2018the decision at issue\u2019) based on a new interpretation of the assessment criteria laid down in Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) without first inviting the parties to express an opinion on the new assessment criteria established in the judgment in Simba Toys v EUIPO (C\u201130/15 P, EU:C:2016:849). The appellant claims to have been thus deprived of the right to submit new legal arguments and facts and to draw the Board\u2019s attention to well-known facts. It follows that the decision at issue, confirmed by the judgment under appeal, was based on facts and grounds on which the appellant has not had the opportunity to express an opinion, which constitutes an infringement of the right to a fair hearing and the right to equality of arms, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019) and reflected in Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94."], "id": "69b997af-5ac9-481e-accd-c7119d174f48", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, in the fourth place, in the event that the immunities provided for in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union are applicable, the referring court has doubts regarding, in essence, the consequences that should follow from this with respect to the action brought by Mr Junqueras Vies against the order referred to in paragraph 25 above. More specifically, the referring court seeks to ascertain, by the third question referred, whether \u2013 and if so how and by whom \u2013 the protection attached to those immunities may be balanced against the other rights and interests to be taken into consideration in dealing with such an action, in the light of Article 39 of the Charter of of the European Union and the corresponding provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950."], "id": "465d2b93-88c1-4b6d-a78e-fa4a5c08207f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["As the Advocate General observed, in essence, in point 66 of his Opinion, the grounds relating to respect for the of the third-country national concerned, in particular the right to respect for family life and the rights of the child, as enshrined in Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the observance of which is binding on the Member States when the CISA is implemented, which forms an integral part of EU law by virtue of Protocol No 19 on the Schengen acquis, is an integral part of EU law, annexed to the Treaties (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 290), are likely to fall within the scope of the concept of \u2018substantive reasons\u2019, within the meaning of that provision."], "id": "fa6fe0c4-d570-4d93-bafb-b0e4c2c12bae", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["As has been stated above, the purpose of Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115 can be understood solely in a manner compatible and consistent with the rights enshrined in the Charter and more specifically in Articles 1 to 4 thereof, which guarantee respect for human dignity and the right to life and to integrity of the person and prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment. Those references are necessarily read into the reference to contained in Article 1 of Directive 2008/115."], "id": "150eada2-6519-4caf-936d-7adddfc4f278", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["There are a number of additional considerations that ought to be taken into account when adopting a position on the proportionality requirement enshrined in Article 20 of Directive 2014/67. Indeed, from a broader, systemic point of view, it is a truism to suggest that the embodiment of the proportionality requirement within that specific provision is far from a lonely, isolated provision, both in its vertical dimension (its relation to the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), the Treaties, and general principles of law) as well in the horizontal one (with a myriad of almost identically worded provisions spread over a number of other secondary law instruments). As the present case and the issues raised therein clearly demonstrate, the choice exercised in Link Logistik has repercussions and is causing ripple effects across the water level of EU law."], "id": "df446fa1-f05f-4549-938a-05fd07c36960", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["The French Government argues that both the effet utile of Directive 2009/73 and the principle of effectiveness point to a negative answer to the question reformulated in this way. This is subject, however, to respect for the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and respect for under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is for the referring court to decide."], "id": "b86d0486-0b18-4a77-80fa-e2dc35ca5ac4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["According to recital 35 of Directive 2013/33, the constitute the reference framework for the standards for the reception of applicants. The provisions set out in Chapter II of that directive are thus intended to guarantee the effective protection of the applicant in the host Member State by supporting his or her needs continuously and in a way which respects his or her fundamental rights, in particular his or her dignity, and ensures equal treatment."], "id": "811fb5e4-d29f-428b-80e6-dcb67b79c356", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1), Article 8(5) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients\u2019 rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 45), Article 56 TFEU and Article 21(1) of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "0f3eb039-a97b-4a53-b16a-2ee6cea8e228", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["30 Judgment in SM (Child placed under Algerian kafala) (paragraph 64). Accordingly, the hand of the national authorities responsible for deciding on an application for entry or residence submitted by an \u2018other family member\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 will be guided with a little more direction from the Court, which expects, in particular in cases where Article 24 of the Charter of is relevant, that those authorities make \u2018a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the current and relevant circumstances of the case, taking account of all the interests in play and, in particular, of the best interests of the child concerned\u2019 (judgment in SM (Child placed under Algerian kafala) (paragraph 68)). The Court would proceed to clarify the criteria to be assessed and the risk assessment to be made. The Member States\u2019 discretion was narrowed significantly when the Court concluded that if, on completion of such an analysis, it appears that the family members in question, including therefore a child, are called to lead a genuine family life and that the child is dependent on its guardians, who are citizens of the EU, then \u2018the requirements relating to the fundamental right to respect for family life, combined with the obligation to take account of the best interests of the child, demand, in principle, that that child be granted a right of entry and residence as one of the other family members of the citizens of the Union for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38\u2019 (judgment in SM (Child placed under Algerian kafala) (paragraph 71), emphasis added)."], "id": "a3f3efc3-2e92-4584-8f1e-a52caf7856cc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["1 By her appeal, BP asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 July 2019, BP v FRA (T\u2011888/16, not published, EU:T:2019:493; \u2018the judgment under appeal\u2019), whereby the General Court dismissed her action seeking (i) annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for (FRA) of 4 April 2016 not to renew her contract as a member of the contract staff (\u2018the contested decision\u2019), adopted as a result of the implementation of the judgment of 3 June 2015, BP v FRA (T\u2011658/13 P, EU:T:2015:356), and (ii) compensation for the harm which she had allegedly suffered. Background to the dispute"], "id": "bbbb79f2-e96f-4c75-b904-6a3f4525ebda", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["One of those requirements is the principle of equal treatment, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 December 2008, Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, C\u2011443/07 P, EU:C:2008:767, paragraph 78, and of 4 March 2010, Ang\u00e9 Serrano and Others v Parliament, C\u2011496/08 P, EU:C:2010:116, paragraph 100)."], "id": "d27d0b43-35ce-4e99-9f35-1d4aa80dd28e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["The Court addresses the issue relating to access of the competent national authorities to the retained data \u2018regardless of the extent of the obligation to retain data that is imposed on providers of electronic communications services\u2019 and, in particular, irrespective of whether retention of data is generalised or targeted. That statement relates to the fact that the Court considers the retention of data and access to those data to be two separate interferences with the protected by the Charter."], "id": "93695c5b-5ded-492e-ab4d-172b5559f78f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Indeed, the Charter itself is often referred to as a source of , which is unsurprising, given the status afforded to it under Article 6(1) TEU. However even though the Charter is primary EU law, recourse to it as a (direct) source of fundamental rights reaches its limits when Article 51(2) of the Charter and 6(1) TEU, second subparagraph come into play, as is the case in these proceedings, because Poland is not implementing EU law under Article 51 (1) of the Charter. Expansion of the Commission\u2019s competence would result, in breach of the second paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU, and Article 51(2) of the Charter, if it were to place direct reliance on Article 47 of the Charter."], "id": "c2c6dfd0-9048-461e-a641-ea3797f5839d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["As regards, in the second place, the context of those provisions, it should be noted, first, that the issuing or validation of a European investigation order is subject, under Directive 2014/41, to a procedure and to guarantees distinct from those governing the issuing of a European arrest warrant. That directive lays down specific provisions intended to ensure that the issuing or validation of a European investigation order by a public prosecutor such as that in Article 2(c) of that directive is accompanied by guarantees specific to the adoption of judicial decisions, specifically those relating to respect for the of the person concerned and, in particular, the right to effective judicial protection."], "id": "583e0b15-771b-416e-b84c-b9f24af3d59c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["As for the referring court\u2019s argument that depriving persons arrested under a European arrest warrant of the rights set out in the aforementioned provisions of Directive 2012/13 would amount to disregarding the obligation to observe , as provided for in recital 12 and Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, and more particularly the requirements resulting from Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter, it should be noted that such an argument, in reality, raises the question of the compatibility of Framework Decision 2002/584 with the fundamental rights protected in the legal order of the European Union, which is the subject of the second question."], "id": "56c0f670-a3ed-423d-8c57-12b5c6cdd3ef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["ET submits that the application made by the public prosecutor is inadmissible and, in the alternative, unfounded. In that regard, ET argues that a term of imprisonment is not only a \u2018measure\u2019 for the purposes of Netherlands criminal law, but also a punitive penalty within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (\u2018the ECHR\u2019), and within the meaning of Article 49(1) of the Charter of of the European Union. Furthermore, ET argues that applying a term of imprisonment constitutes an aggravation of the confiscation order, of which enforcement is sought, rendering it unlawful."], "id": "a2ce3e65-c5e3-46df-a2ec-8a44662b55e4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Appeal \u2013 Electronic communications networks and services \u2013 Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC \u2013 Consolidating the internal market for electronic communications \u2013 Article 7(3) and (7) \u2013 Draft measure made accessible by the national regulatory authority \u2013 Wholesale fixed access market in the Netherlands \u2013 Joint significant market power \u2013 Comments of the European Commission communicated to the national regulatory authority \u2013 Obligation for the national regulatory authority to take the utmost account of them \u2013 Scope \u2013 Article 263 TFEU \u2013 Action for annulment \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Challengeable act \u2013 Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union)"], "id": "f2dcdd73-47bf-486d-87fd-9b79eb4d8da0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["That approach, grounded in the elevation of the protection of personal data under Article 8 of the Charter of of the European Union to an all-overriding fundamental (super-)right, nonetheless leads to distinct centripetal effects which the protection of personal data has started to exercise on other areas of law and disputes arising therein. A number of cases have started suddenly being portrayed as matters of personal-data protection and brought before (not only) this Court as a matter of interpretation of the GDPR. However, the specific issues raised in those disputes are, at times, not those expected to be governed by a piece of legislation such as the GDPR, despite its rather broad scope."], "id": "cecbaf52-360c-43af-812f-13ad363833b5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["60 In that regard, as is apparent from the Explanations relating to the Charter of (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17), in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, the rights guaranteed in Article 7 thereof have the same meaning and the same scope as those guaranteed in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950."], "id": "df8e3fcb-f1c2-4096-b7ce-a9df3bce4e43", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter of of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that:"], "id": "802a9a72-07f1-44e9-b653-35305a91d3d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["If the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin were to be retained unconditionally and indefinitely, notwithstanding the fact that the abduction to the third State has, in the meantime, met, inter alia, acquiescence on the part of any person, institution or other body holding rights of custody, and without there being any condition allowing for account to be taken of the specific circumstances characterising the situation of the child concerned, or for the best interests of that child to be protected, that retention of jurisdiction would prevent the court regarded as best placed to assess the measures to be adopted in the best interests of the child from being able to hear applications in relation to such measures. Such an outcome would be contrary to the objective pursued by Regulation No 2201/2003, which must be read, as is clear from recital 33 of that regulation, in the light of Article 24 of the Charter of of the European Union."], "id": "17bee9ac-2578-4d8e-adee-c8318bb3e715", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to take due account of the best interests of the child before adopting a return decision accompanied by an entry ban, even where the person to whom that decision is addressed is not a minor but his or her father."], "id": "a9dd89e1-c73c-486c-93c9-b3d09789c9ae", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["53. In that connection, it must be borne in mind that \u2013 as the Court has consistently held \u2013 the effective enforcement of competition policy is an objective of general interest recognised by the European Union. Indeed, the Treaty provisions on competition law constitute fundamental provisions which are essential for the accomplishment of the tasks entrusted to the European Union and, in particular, for the functioning of the internal market. (27) Therefore, the enforcement of competition rules must respect the of the undertakings involved, but fundamental rights must also be interpreted and applied in such a manner as not to obstruct an effective enforcement of competition rules. (28)"], "id": "6c52bb0a-3d97-4bce-9fbb-87a464fb064e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8, 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of , must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the access of the competent national authorities to retained data be subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority is not met where national legislation provides that such review is to be carried out by the public prosecutor\u2019s office which is responsible for directing the pre-trial procedure, whilst also being likely to represent the public prosecution in judicial proceedings."], "id": "a5ff7d4a-ed83-4d0e-b824-a6498cd56ae5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["To take an observation formulated in the context of situations coming under EU law: the protection of private life and of personality rights need not necessarily be ensured in absolute terms but must be weighed against the protection of other . It is thus necessary to avoid excessive measures that would disregard the need to strike a fair balance between the different fundamental rights."], "id": "f510dc9e-76ae-4d12-b87e-ee38340596be", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, according to the referring court, the compensation to which the applicant in the main proceedings is entitled does not constitute adequate compensation for unlawful collective redundancy for the purposes of Article 30 of the Charter. Indeed, it would appear from the Explanations relating to the Charter of (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) that Article 30 of the Charter should be interpreted in the light of Article 24 of the European Social Charter, signed in Turin on 18 October 1961. This in turn has, it is stated, been interpreted by the European Committee of Social Rights to the effect that a penalty arising from unlawful collective redundancy is considered adequate where it provides for (i) the reimbursement of the financial losses suffered by the worker concerned between the date of his or her dismissal and the decision ordering the employer to reimburse him or her, (ii) the possibility of reinstating that worker in the company and (iii) compensation in an amount high enough to deter the employer and to compensate for the damage suffered by the worker concerned."], "id": "bf05fe87-ee59-4ba9-99d0-27b4289984b0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["The requirement for teachers of the Catholic faith to obtain the approval of a diocesan ordinary as a prerequisite to teaching in public schools does not constitute an objective reason within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, justifying renewal of fixed-term contracts. In the circumstances of the main proceedings, and because Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement lacks the preconditions of direct effect, the referring court is required to disapply an absolute legislative prohibition under Member State law which precludes conversion of fixed-term contracts to contracts of indeterminate duration, only if non-conversion results in discrimination on the basis of religion or belief inconsistently with Article 21 of the Charter of of the European Union, and the unavailability of an effective remedy to correct this wrong, inconsistently with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, which is for the referring court to determine. In this event, all rules of Member State law that cannot be interpreted in conformity with the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of religion or belief protected by Article 21 of the Charter, and the remedy for its breach guaranteed by the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, are to be disapplied, including rules of a constitutional nature."], "id": "83e2e57d-e5ef-4f41-9e54-239a6be827f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["46 In addition, the Court has stated that the obligation on the Member States to ensure the effectiveness of the rights that individuals derive from EU law, particularly the rights deriving from Directive 93/13, implies a requirement for effective judicial protection, reaffirmed in Article 7(1) of that directive and also guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union, which applies, inter alia, to the definition of detailed procedural rules relating to actions based on such rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 June 2021, BNP Paribas Personal Finance, C\u2011776/19 to C 782/19, EU:C:2021:470, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "7a37052b-b080-4091-a997-1db23dc87d2e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred.\u2019"], "id": "f9a9d2ce-5f97-46eb-ad14-4b71b3556c1d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Preliminary-ruling proceedings \u2014 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters \u2014 European investigation order \u2014 Public prosecutor acting as issuing authority \u2014 Independence of public prosecutor\u2019s office from the executive \u2014 Directive 2014/41/EU \u2014 Judicial authority authorised to issue a European investigation order \u2014 Autonomous concept \u2014 Differences between the rules laid down in Directive 2014/41/EU and those laid down in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA \u2014 Protection of \u2014 Need for the involvement of a court)"], "id": "44c32a81-f458-47c1-bd5f-d78a90072211", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Maritime transport \u2013 Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 \u2013 Articles 18 and 19, Article 20(4), and Articles 24 and 25 \u2013 Cancellation of passenger services \u2013 Late delivery of a vessel to the carrier \u2013 Notice given prior to the originally scheduled date of departure \u2013 Consequences \u2013 Right to re-routing \u2013 Procedures \u2013 Payment of the additional costs \u2013 Right to compensation \u2013 Calculation \u2013 Concept of ticket price \u2013 National body responsible for the enforcement of Regulation No 1177/2010 \u2013 Competence \u2013 Concept of a complaint \u2013 Assessment of validity \u2013 Articles 16, 17, 20 and 47 of the Charter of of the European Union \u2013 Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and equal treatment)"], "id": "1dbd8d9a-9341-47ac-9266-13d94fb16877", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, as is recalled in paragraphs 220 and 251 of the present judgment, it follows from the case-law of the Court in relation to Article 325(1) TFEU that the obligation to ensure the effective and comprehensive collection of the European Union\u2019s own resources, namely customs duties, requires the necessary observance of the guaranteed by the Charter and of general principles of EU law."], "id": "c776b4dc-5a59-4af7-80b5-54441e422530", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["31 The Council is of the view that the first part of the first ground of appeal is unfounded. It points out that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, it is not for the General Court to verify whether or not the investigations or procedures concerning the appellants in Egypt were well founded, but only to verify whether that was the case as regards the decisions to adopt restrictive measures in the light of the evidence on which those decisions were based (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 October 2017, Yanukovych v Council, C\u2011599/16 P, not published, EU:C:2017:785, paragraph 69, and of 19 October 2017, Yanukovych v Council, C\u2011598/16 P, not published, EU:C:2017:786, paragraph 72). Moreover, in a situation where, as in the present case, a person covered by a restrictive measure has not put forward any evidence capable of demonstrating that his particular situation was affected by the alleged problems in the judicial system of the third State concerned, the Council is not bound to require additional verification on the part of the third State concerned as to the facts alleged against that person (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 October 2017, Yanukovych v Council, C\u2011598/16 P, not published, EU:C:2017:786, paragraph 64). Lastly, where such a person relies on general information relating to the human rights situation in a third State, in order to demonstrate that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Council had discharged its burden of proof as regards the conformity of the relevant decision of the third State concerned with that person\u2019s , it is for that person to provide concrete evidence of the effect of that general situation on his particular situation (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 October 2017, Yanukovych v Council, C\u2011598/16 P, not published, EU:C:2017:786, paragraph 75. Findings of the Court"], "id": "9095069e-f577-45c5-97a3-209509dceb5d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["In order to satisfy the requirements of Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union when conducting a review in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fine, the EU judicature is bound, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 261 and 263 TFEU, to examine all complaints based on issues of fact and law which seek to show that the amount of the fine is not commensurate with the gravity or the duration of the infringement (see judgment of 26 January 2017, Villeroy & Boch v Commission, C\u2011625/13 P, EU:C:2017:52, paragraph 180 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "049ee613-c7a4-4d24-807d-b56d49df81cf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["The first part of Question 3 is to be answered as follows: the EU principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union and in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, does not preclude decisions of a national constitutional court declaring the carrying out of technical surveillance measures in the framework of criminal proceedings by domestic intelligence services to be unconstitutional and requiring the exclusion of any evidence thus obtained from criminal proceedings."], "id": "300866c6-0845-4d34-bd05-4721e6c2740b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["17 In those circumstances, the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018Does the second paragraph of Article 25 of [Royal Decree No 2316 of 24 December 1934], as replaced by Article 24(3) of [Legislative Decree No 6/2016] \u2013 inasmuch as it provides that \u201canyone who sells or supplies tobacco products or electronic cigarettes or refill containers containing nicotine or novel tobacco products to minors under the age of 18 shall be liable to a financial administrative penalty of EUR 500 to EUR 3 000 and a 15-day trading licence suspension\u201d \u2013 infringe the EU principle of proportionality and the precautionary principle, as set out in Article 5 TEU, in Article 23(3) of Directive 2014/40, and in recitals 21 and 60 of that directive, by giving precedence to the precautionary principle without mitigating it with the principle of proportionality, and thus disproportionately sacrificing the interests of economic operators to the protection of the right to health, thereby failing to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the different and, what is more, doing so by means of a penalty that, contrary to recital 8 of [that directive], does not effectively pursue the objective of discouraging smoking prevalence among young people?\u2019 Consideration of the question referred"], "id": "f8fa475d-4c9e-40a7-856f-3fd5fd52d297", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["The Court found a basis for this exceptional derogation from the rules of Framework Decision 2002/584 in Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision, which states that it \u2018shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 [EU]\u2019. The Court also recognised in its jurisprudence that the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust can be limited in exceptional circumstances."], "id": "8a27ef6c-2b7f-4196-bec9-7784ed0a7d27", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, where a European arrest warrant is issued with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, that person must have already had the benefit, at the first stage of the proceedings, of procedural safeguards and , the protection of which it is the task of the judicial authorities of the issuing Member State to ensure, in accordance with the applicable provisions of national law, for the purpose, inter alia, of adopting a national arrest warrant (judgment of 1 June 2016, Bob-Dogi, C\u2011241/15, EU:C:2016:385, paragraph 55)."], "id": "744bffa4-b014-40f4-9a09-e50412b66ecb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["To this I would add that general principles remain a source of , notwithstanding the advent of the Charter. Indeed, Article 6(3) TEU states that fundamental rights \u2018constitute general principles of the Union\u2019s law.\u2019 As one commentary has observed, \u2018co-existence of the various fundamental rights\u2019 sources\u2019 secures the aim \u2018of providing a high level of protection of individuals\u2019 rights\u2019. Therefore, the content of the guarantee of the rule of law under Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU, second subparagraph, and respect for the irremovability and independence of judges inherent therein, is determined, pursuant to Article 6(3) TEU, by the ECHR, and constitutional traditions common to the Member States."], "id": "b4f4c3a8-cc2a-4918-825d-f84fd2de1fc6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["It seems, therefore, that in accordance with the case-law of both this Court and the ECtHR, consideration of the law of the issuing Member State at the time of the issuing of the EAW, for the purposes of assessing the condition relating to the length of the penalty in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision, would not infringe the principle of legality enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of of the European Union, interpreted in conformity with the scope of Article 7 ECHR. This is because such an interpretation would not lead to the imposition in the criminal case of a penalty which was not provided for by the issuing Member State at the time when the offences were committed."], "id": "85bfad3c-c12f-44c5-adbf-316b2669089c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["It might again be recalled that, according to settled case-law, where EU law allows Member States a measure of discretion, national authorities and courts remain free to protect under the national constitution, provided that the level of protection guaranteed by the Charter, as well as the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not thereby compromised. Moreover, it has been stated above in this Opinion that a given national constitutional standard could indeed require specialisation of judges, whether it be as an independent national standard, or embedded as a national rule on what will eventually amount to a tribunal previously established by law (or to a fair trial, lawful judge, or under whichever other heading national constitutional rules might place such a rule)."], "id": "ea2a3c9e-7726-49cc-964c-ce58abc5ecf9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and in the light of Article 24(2) of the Charter of of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not distinguish between unaccompanied minors solely on the basis of the criterion of their age for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are adequate reception facilities in the State of return."], "id": "ee596bb2-f5b0-4ef3-be1e-ae29abdea703", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["In the fourth place, the German Government maintains that an interpretation of the Directives in the light of their legal bases and of and freedoms supports its position. It emphasises, first, that the Directives were adopted on the basis of Articles 47(2), 55 and 95 of the EC Treaty, the aim of which is to make it easier to exercise the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services and the object of which is the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Consequently, those provisions of the Treaty cannot constitute the legal basis for the adoption of provisions which apply to the economic activities of undertakings operating in a third country. Secondly, the Directives impose obligations on vertically integrated undertakings that restrict the free movement of capital, within the meaning of Article 63 TFEU, as well as the freedom of undertakings and those who work for them to conduct a business, enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), as well as the right to property enshrined in Article 17(1) of the Charter. To the extent that the activities of third-country undertakings carried on outside the European Union produce no effects on the internal market, such restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms are not necessary to attain the objective of ensuring the efficient, non-discriminatory operation of transmission systems within the European Union."], "id": "4f52ec13-110b-4861-974b-5110bc4c2712", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["To accept that it is possible for Member States to exclude any reduction of the VAT taxable amount would also run counter to the principle of the neutrality of VAT. This would mean, inter alia, that the trader, as tax collector on behalf of the State, is entirely to be relieved of the burden of tax due or paid in the course of his economic activities, themselves subject to VAT. In addition, as I have already stated in my opinion in the Di Maura case, the of the taxable supplier must be considered. They may be interfered with only in a proportionate manner (second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)."], "id": "d64dde57-65aa-485e-b82a-e76abf78e493", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["In support of its action, Landesbank Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg relied on six pleas in law. Those pleas alleged: first, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019) due to the fact that the decision at issue failed to state adequate reasons; second, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter due to the absence of an opportunity for Landesbank Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg to be heard; third, infringement of Article 47 of the Charter due to the fact that that decision was not subject to review; fourth, infringement of several provisions of secondary legislation and of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter, due to the application of the multiplier for the \u2018institutional protection scheme\u2019 indicator; fifth, infringement of Article 16 of the Charter and of the principle of proportionality, as a consequence of the application of the risk adjusting multiplier; sixth, illegality of Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of Delegated Regulation 2015/63 and of Annex I to that delegated regulation."], "id": "00e702b4-41bb-4b65-b0bf-4beeee53d5ee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled that, according to the case-law, the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union requires, in particular, that the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that the decision by which restrictive measures were adopted or maintained, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C\u2011584/10 P, C\u2011593/10 P and C\u2011595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119)."], "id": "ff21f698-181d-428a-8ab2-9ad953ce506c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Second, the Commission contends that Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union, by lowering, in Article 13(1) of the Amending Law of July 2017, the retirement age of judges of the ordinary courts, while at the same time vesting the Minister for Justice with a discretion to prolong the period of active service of individual ordinary court judges under Article 1(26)(b) and (c) of the same law."], "id": "49a36504-5f3a-4bed-8f55-0fdc73e32495", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, and of Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "0cd6f61e-bb6a-43ac-80e1-e56f4e6d0ab9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, where a European arrest warrant is issued with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution, that person must have already had the benefit, at the first stage of the proceedings, of procedural safeguards and , the protection of which it is the task of the judicial authorities of the issuing Member State to ensure, in accordance with the applicable provisions of national law, for the purpose, inter alia, of adopting a national arrest warrant (see, to that effect, judgments of 27 May 2019, OG and PI (Public Prosecutor\u2019s Offices, L\u00fcbeck and Zwickau), C\u2011508/18 and C\u201182/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456, paragraph 66, and of 9 October 2019, NJ (Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office, Vienna), C\u2011489/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:849, paragraph 33)."], "id": "2c77eab9-e90b-4f4d-bd85-e574b493fd44", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39, and corrigendum OJ 2014 L 138, p. 114) and of Articles 17 and 48 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "ed1bdde1-eab3-4492-b990-5cdab1ccb0bc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["56 It is precisely openness in that regard which, by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated, contributes to reducing doubts in the minds of citizens, not only as regards the lawfulness of an isolated legislative measure but also as regards the legitimacy of the legislative process as a whole (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council, C\u201139/05 P and C\u201152/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 59), and contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for as laid down in Article 6 TEU and in the Charter, as stated in recital 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001."], "id": "1c2a12f1-e2bb-4245-aab3-5c0e682e3f6d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["The principle of mutual trust requires, particularly as regards the area of freedom, security and justice, each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the recognised by EU law (judgment of 17 December 2020, Openbaar Ministerie (Independence of the issuing judicial authority), C\u2011354/20 PPU and C\u2011412/20 PPU, EU:C:2020:1033, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "84dc46b6-179e-41f1-ba52-7f092288304d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["41. In each of the solutions which has been reviewed, the balance is tipped entirely in favour of one of the rights concerned, whereas it is necessary to find a balance which results in the least possible sacrifice of the involved. In the statements made below, I will explain how, in my view, this balance should be identified. (f) The proposed solution and \u2018procedural data due process\u2019"], "id": "462ba552-3aa9-45a6-ab24-dbafc405d23b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data \u2014 Charter of of the European Union \u2014 Articles 7 and 8 \u2014 Directive 95/46/EC \u2014 Article 6(1)(c) and Article 7(f) \u2014 Making the processing of personal data legitimate \u2014 National legislation allowing video surveillance for the purposes of ensuring the safety and protection of individuals, property and valuables and for the pursuit of legitimate interests, without the data subject\u2019s consent \u2014 Installation of a video surveillance system in the common parts of a residential building)"], "id": "390472e1-f252-427b-941f-9a6006723180", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["On the other hand, if, having regard to the information available, the competent authority of the Member State of execution determines that the certificate provided for in Article 4 of the Framework Decision suggests that or fundamental legal principles may have been infringed, that authority may oppose the recognition and execution of the decision transmitted. Before doing so, that authority is required to request all the necessary information from the authority of the issuing Member State, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Framework Decision."], "id": "258f34fe-beb5-4616-b502-40542279340f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, it must be noted that every detention ordered which is within the scope of Directive 2008/115 is strictly circumscribed by the provisions of Chapter IV thereof so as to ensure, on the one hand, compliance with the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued and, on the other, observance of the of the third-country nationals concerned (judgment of 5 June 2014, Mahdi, C\u2011146/14 PPU, EU:C:2014:1320, paragraph 55). According to recital 6 of Directive 2008/115, decisions taken under that directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria (judgment of 5 June 2014, Mahdi, C\u2011146/14 PPU, EU:C:2014:1320, paragraph 70)."], "id": "94f7c3bc-7030-42b9-983a-a6785d6f2569", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, and Article 51(1) of the Charter of must be interpreted as meaning that neither that directive nor that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital for therapeutic purposes, such as those provided for in Article 155 et seq. of the Zakon za zdraveto (Health Law), at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that there is a risk that, in view of his state of health, the person concerned represents a danger to himself or others."], "id": "a5509ca0-49e7-4713-8ac2-8ae7f705628f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1) and the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 10, 20, 21 and 22 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "b6bcbe3a-8ede-43e7-8adc-15cbcbc3db2a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["The principle of mutual trust between the Member States requires, particularly as regards the area of freedom, security and justice, each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the recognised by EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the System of Justice), C\u2011216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 36)."], "id": "ad265944-c685-4670-ba44-118abf34948f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["38. Irish Ferries challenged the contested decision and the notices issued in respect of Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 1177/2010 before the High Court (Ireland), claiming, in the first place, that that regulation did not apply where a cancellation had occurred several weeks before the date of the scheduled sailings. In the second place, Irish Ferries disputed the NTA\u2019s interpretation and enforcement of Articles 18 to 20 of the regulation. More specifically, it argued that the delay in the delivery of the vessel constituted an \u2018extraordinary circumstance\u2019 which exempted it from the payment of the compensation provided for in Article 19 of that regulation. In the third place, Irish Ferries criticised NTA for having infringed Article 25 of that same regulation by having acted ultra vires. In its view, the NTA exercised its jurisdiction over transport services departing from France and heading to Ireland, whereas those services fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the French authority. In the fourth place, Irish Ferries complains that the NTA infringed Article 24 of Regulation No 1177/2010 by having failed to limit the effect of its decision to passengers who had made a complaint in the form and within the deadlines specified in Article 24 of that regulation. In the fifth and final place, Irish Ferries contested the validity of the regulation in the light of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and equal treatment, and of Articles 16, 17 and 20 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "c17c6fe3-69bc-43a1-80b3-85d62f6f6096", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 191(2) TFEU, Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55), Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22), and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "065eba1a-05cb-4fd4-9738-79477dc29c8c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["In his application of 30 May 2018, the applicant stated that, in so far as he was adversely affected by the first contested decision, he should have access to those documents, in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter of , particularly as he had had to submit the second request for assistance on 10 April 2018 as a result of actions by the Head of Unit which had allegedly taken place during and after the drafting of the investigation report."], "id": "f471154b-91f2-4eae-8b5c-963bf059fa92", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Immigration policy \u2013 Return of illegally staying third-country nationals \u2013 Parent of a seriously ill child who reached the age of majority during the course of an appeal against the rejection of an application for a residence permit \u2013 Order to leave the territory \u2013 Directive 2008/115 \u2013 Article 13 \u2013 Legal remedy with suspensory effect \u2013 Article 14 \u2013 Safeguards pending return \u2013 Basic needs \u2013 Grant of social assistance to the parent \u2013 Charter of of the European Union \u2013 Articles 7, 24 and 47 \u2013 Relationship of dependency between the parent and the seriously ill child)"], "id": "97e0402a-c144-4f66-a203-dfac0701359d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["As indicated by Lamont, R., \u2018Article 24 of the Charter of of the European Union\u2019, in The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Oxford, 2014, p. 672, Article 24, paragraph 24.23, the Charter contains, in addition to the rights of the child in Article 24, a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age in Article 21, which, according to the author, implies that any discrimination of minors (in general) is prohibited. In my opinion, that finding does not preclude a specific category of minors defined according to age (namely minors aged 15 or over) from being able to rely on that prohibition in order to dispute the legality of a national provision (implementing EU law) which, as in the present case, has the effect of treating that category of minors, essentially, as adults, in so far as it deprives the minors in that category of the protection guaranteed by Article 24 of the Charter, given specific expression by Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive."], "id": "7c3b8bda-8986-49c4-909b-33facbb7da1d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Such a conclusion could also lead to a situation where yet another aspect of newspaper publishing becomes fraught with unusual legal difficulties of its own. Most newspapers \u2013 ranging from the most serious to the more popular \u2013 provide for readers\u2019 columns of this kind, where advice is given by columnists in respect of a variety of issues, including medical, legal, gardening, parenting and personal problems. If a newspaper could be made liable on a strict liability basis for poor or defective advice which caused either personal injury, or (subject to the limits contained in Article 9 of the Product Liability Directive) damage to property, this would bring about a new hazard for publishers, which, as the defendant pointed out in its written submissions, might have serious implications in practical terms for the freedom of the press as safeguarded by Article 11(2) of the Charter of of the European Union (and, by extension, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights). All of this is to say that if the Product Liability Directive had been intended to bring about such a result, one would have expected that this would have been expressed in pellucidly clear and unmistakeable terms. The very fact that that directive is pointedly silent on this matter is in its own eloquent way testimony to the fact that the imposition of such liability in such circumstances was never intended by the EU legislature."], "id": "f56e9c38-8eb5-4ea0-a0a0-177045153812", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Article 3(2) and Article 32 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions, read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding recognition, without further conditions, in legal proceedings on the merits pending in a Member State other than the home Member State relating to a liability which a credit institution had been relieved of by a first reorganisation measure taken in the latter Member State, the effects of a second reorganisation measure seeking to transfer back, with retroactive effect at a date prior to the opening of such proceedings, that liability to that credit institution, where such recognition has the result that the credit institution to which the liabilities had been transferred by the first measure can no longer be sued, with retroactive effect, the purposes of those proceedings, thereby calling into question judicial decisions already adopted in favour of the applicant who is the subject of those same proceedings."], "id": "ded8cf0b-215f-4479-9e61-fde8555f7531", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, while the of the persons concerned must be respected by the Member States, this must still be so in the case of the return procedure. The fundamental rights of the persons concerned may be material, for example taking account of their state of health, or procedural, such as the form of return decisions or even the availability of a legal remedy."], "id": "3892f41c-00d2-405a-b9ed-47a1e0a38563", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["Recital 33 of Directive 2013/32 clearly states that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration of Member States when applying the directive, in accordance with the Charter and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, and this is reflected in an express and general obligation laid down in Article 25(6) of the directive. In assessing the best interest of the child, Member States must in particular take due account of the minor\u2019s well-being and social development, including his or her background. Accordingly, the provisions of Directive 2013/32 cannot be interpreted in such a way that they disregard the fundamental right of a child to maintain personal relations with his or her parents on a regular basis, the respect for which undeniably merges into the best interests of the child. I recall that the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with EU law but also make sure they do not rely on an interpretation of an instrument of secondary legislation which would be in conflict with the protected by the legal order of the European Union."], "id": "2c5bf1cb-906c-45c6-88b3-6978db1d1b45", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, interpreted in the light of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of of the European Union, precludes a national provision or judicial practice according to which, where the suspect fails to appear when first summoned by the court and a national arrest warrant is issued, the right of access to a lawyer may be delayed until the warrant is executed and the suspect appears before the court."], "id": "65b773c6-516d-42b3-b138-06de5d8da8fc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["As is clear from Article 1 of Directive 2011/83, read in the light of recitals 3, 4 and 7 thereof, that directive seeks to provide a high level of consumer protection. Furthermore, in EU policies, the protection of consumers \u2013 who are in a weaker position in relation to sellers or suppliers, inasmuch as they must be deemed to be less informed, economically weaker and legally less experienced than the opposite party \u2013 is enshrined in Article 169 TFEU and in Article 38 of the Charter of of the European Union (judgment of 27 March 2019, slewo, C\u2011681/17, EU:C:2019:255, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "416bb464-0f6a-43b4-9356-a1eef780a626", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of of the European Union and the principle of sincere cooperation arising under Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when an application for asylum has been the subject of a rejection decision that was confirmed by a judicial decision that became final before the incompatibility of that rejection with EU law was found, the determining authority, within the meaning of Article 2(f) of Directive 2013/32, is not required to re-examine that application ex officio. Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a judgment of the Court finding that national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which he or she was not exposed to persecution or to a risk of serious harm or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed is incompatible with EU law constitutes a new element relating to the examination of an application for international protection, within the meaning of that provision. Furthermore, that provision is not applicable to a subsequent application, within the meaning of Article 2(q) of that directive, where the determining authority finds that the definitive rejection of the earlier application is contrary to EU law. Such a finding must necessarily be made by that authority when that incompatibility arises from a judgment of the Court or was established, as an ancillary finding, by a national court."], "id": "da607888-196e-42da-924e-76a266625c44", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["That latter measure is the most serious constraining measure allowed under Directive 2008/115 in a forced removal procedure. It is, in principle, a measure of last resort. It is therefore strictly regulated by the EU legislature, in Chapter IV of the directive, in such a way as to ensure the observance both of the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued and of the of the migrants concerned."], "id": "11eec403-d9b3-4d1f-819a-77a18a320491", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["Having regard to that context and those objectives, the individual right of each working parent to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child, enshrined in clause 2.1 of the revised Framework Agreement, must be interpreted as articulating a particularly important EU social right which, moreover, is laid down in Article 33(2) of the Charter of . It follows that that right cannot be interpreted restrictively (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 February 2014, Lyreco Belgium, C\u2011588/12, EU:C:2014:99, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "115eb9cc-f2fd-481d-a908-c5997857bc2f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Fundamental Rights", "masked_sentences": ["According to the applicant, the Commission\u2019s errors of law and manifest errors of assessment must be examined in the light of the fundamental right of access to documents, which meets the objective of strengthening the legitimacy of administrative bodies in the context of their decision-making activities and which is enshrined in Article 42 of the Charter of . Any exception to, or limitation of that right should be interpreted restrictively. The applicant relies on the contradictory nature of the positions adopted by the Commission concerning the disclosure of information on the state of progress of the recovery of the State aid."], "id": "12385108-f16e-4ad6-96c1-f744b6cf9b17", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fundamental rights", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Urgent preliminary ruling procedure \u2014 Judicial cooperation in civil matters \u2014 Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 \u2014 Article 8(1) \u2014 Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility \u2014 Concept of \u2018habitual residence of the child\u2019 \u2014 Requirement of physical presence \u2014 Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother \u2014 Infringement of the of the mother and child)"], "id": "fd062df4-ce15-4d85-a6e2-1b2e90247f2a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Article 9 of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts and Article 27 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 5(5) of, and point 29 of Annex I to, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, do not regulate the formation of contracts, with the result that it is for the referring court to assess, in accordance with national legislation, whether a contract may be regarded as concluded between a water supply company and a consumer in the absence of the latter\u2019s express consent."], "id": "42c93833-8813-47bd-8bb9-e5db70980336", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In the case at hand, as the Commission maintains, at no point did it give assurances to the applicant as to the compatibility of the aid scheme at issue with the , especially since the Italian Republic implemented that scheme without waiting for the Commission to give a decision on it under Article 108 TFEU, thereby indicating the unlawfulness of that scheme."], "id": "81ab7ac3-faf4-4d80-803d-44cfe4db25d1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, the applicants claim that the Italian authorities did not provide a detailed explanation of the new financial plans intended to replace the measures approved under the contested decision. In particular, the Italian authorities simply referred to the fact that the new plans did not provide for a prolongation of the concessions at issue, without offering any explanations regarding the financing of the A33 Asti \u2013 Cuneo motorway from the revenues of the SATAP A4 Torino \u2013 Milano motorway or regarding the possible takeover value to be paid to the concessionaires at the end of the concessions by the possible new concessionaire, and without guaranteeing that they would not \u2018revive\u2019 the prolongation of the concessions at issue in the future. In those circumstances, annulment of the contested decision would prevent the Commission from repeating the errors identified by the action at issue if the new financial plans contained aid measures whose compatibility with the depended on assessments similar to those underlying the contested decision."], "id": "4f99c4a4-dc99-4f64-872f-e2cd07840a91", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["However, it should still be borne in mind that, Article 1(6) of Directive 2006/123, read in the light of recital 14 of that directive, as fittingly put by Advocate General Wahl in his Opinion in \u010cepelnik (C\u201133/17, EU:C:2018:311, points 50 and 53), does \u2018not state that the field of labour law is, as a whole, excluded from the scope of the Services Directive\u2019 and that \u2018far from giving Member States carte blanche to apply their labour law regardless of the possible impact on the , the Services Directive provides for a limited exception only\u2019."], "id": "60c532b9-bd11-494d-b020-3b5a429f0f3f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Internal Market", "masked_sentences": ["The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4f(6) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Information System (\u2018the IMI Regulation\u2019) . That provision allows for the first time for partial access to a professional activity in the context of a system of mutual recognition of qualifications."], "id": "8f5af5c0-b7aa-4ce7-b168-a2df8d592c19", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In recital 244 of the contested decision, the Commission noted that it had based its assessment of the operating aid in recital 227 of Decision 2014/883 on the finding that \u2018granting operating aid in order to ensure the operation of an investment project that benefits of incompatible investment aid is inherently incompatible with the internal market\u2019. Without the incompatible investment aid Gdynia airport would not exist, as it is entirely financed by that aid, and operating aid cannot be granted for non-existent airport infrastructure. In recital 245 of the contested decision, the Commission considered that that conclusion under the 2005 Guidelines is equally valid under the 2014 Guidelines and sufficient to find that the operating aid granted to the airport operator is incompatible with the . In recitals 246 and 247 of the contested decision, the Commission refers to the first compatibility condition established by the 2014 Guidelines (in point 113 thereof) and to Decision 2014/883, explaining that if that aid was not compatible with the 2005 Guidelines, it would not be compatible with the 2014 Guidelines either. Finally, in recitals 248 and 249 of the contested decision, the Commission analyses, for the sake of completeness, the compatibility of the operating aid with the Regional aid Guidelines."], "id": "0613f560-bbff-4865-bcf2-a7f4e8160eaa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["On 15 April 2020, the Commission adopted Decision C(2020) 2416 final on State Aid SA.56795 (2020/N) \u2013 Denmark \u2013 Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines (\u2018the contested decision\u2019), by which it concluded that the measure at issue, first, constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and, secondly, was compatible with the on the basis of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU."], "id": "98124bcb-b39b-45cf-a61e-44a6b7415cc3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["42 Such an interpretation is, in addition, supported by the objective of Regulation No 650/2012, which, according to recital 7 thereof, aims to facilitate the proper functioning of the by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who wish to assert their rights arising from a cross-border succession. In particular, in the European area of justice, the rights of heirs and legatees, of other persons close to the deceased and of creditors of the estate must be effectively guaranteed (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 March 2018, Mahnkopf, C\u2011558/16, EU:C:2018:138, paragraph 35, and of 1 July 2021, Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypotheken-Bank, C\u2011301/20, EU:C:2021:528, paragraphs 27 and 34)."], "id": "dd0b59e6-669e-4c01-ade6-af619e22b1f2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The de facto and de jure situation resulting from those national differences in some cases leads to distortions of competition among creditors in the [Union] and creates obstacles to the where Member States have adopted different mandatory provisions more stringent than those provided for in Directive 87/102/EEC. It restricts consumers\u2019 ability to make direct use of the gradually increasing availability of cross-border credit. Those distortions and restrictions may in turn have consequences in terms of the demand for goods and services."], "id": "e2d1c5cc-40f3-4ad6-a33b-dcbfe8ee58bd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Internal market", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 in electricity \u2014 Directive 2009/72/EC \u2014 Article 3 \u2014 Consumer protection \u2014 Article 37 \u2014 Tasks and powers of the regulatory authority \u2014 Out-of-court dispute settlement \u2014 Concept of \u2018party\u2019 \u2014 Right to appeal against a decision of the regulatory authority \u2014 Complaint made by a household customer against an electricity distribution system operator)"], "id": "0b933981-2b5b-4838-93a1-7e0d7fd299d0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 4, 5, 7 and 39 of Directive 2011/83 are worded as follows: \u2018(4) In accordance with Article 26(2) TFEU, the is to comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods and services and freedom of establishment are ensured. The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance and off-premises contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity. (5) \u2026 [T]he full harmonisation of consumer information and the right of withdrawal in distance and off-premises contracts will contribute to a high level of consumer protection and a better functioning of the business-to-consumer internal market. \u2026 (7) Full harmonisation of some key regulatory aspects should considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and traders. Both consumers and traders should be able to rely on a single regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts regulating certain aspects of business-to-consumer contracts across the Union. The effect of such harmonisation should be to eliminate the barriers stemming from the fragmentation of the rules and to complete the internal market in this area. Those barriers can only be eliminated by establishing uniform rules at Union level. Furthermore consumers should enjoy a high common level of protection across the Union. \u2026 (39) It is important to ensure for distance contracts concluded through websites that the consumer is able to fully read and understand the main elements of the contract before placing his order. To that end, provision should be made in this Directive for those elements to be displayed in the close vicinity of the confirmation requested for placing the order. It is also important to ensure that, in such situations, the consumer is able to determine the moment at which he assumes the obligation to pay the trader. Therefore, the consumer\u2019s attention should specifically be drawn, through an unambiguous formulation, to the fact that placing the order entails the obligation to pay the trader.\u2019"], "id": "26173ec0-e811-40a8-8edf-fcf51d8270ff", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["54. Therefore, whether aid granted to a research organisation amounts to State aid depends on the qualification of the funded activity as economic or non-economic. If the funded activity is non-economic in nature, State aid rules do not apply, even if the same entity engages also in economic activity, which is, however, clearly separated from the funded activity. If the funded activity is economic, such funding is State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU. Such aid may however ultimately be considered compatible with the , and consequently allowed."], "id": "cba06741-8a63-4a08-a5cd-a643f949a1f4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["An interpretation according to which, whereas economic value is derived from the non-energy products thus generated, the entirety of the consumption of energy products in the production process would benefit \u2013 counter to the principles recalled in paragraph 30 of the present judgment \u2013 from the exemption concerning the chargeable event giving rise to the tax would be such as to undermine attaining the objective of Directive 2003/96. In that respect, it should be recalled that, by laying down a system of harmonised taxation of energy products and electricity, that directive seeks, as is clear from recitals 3 to 5 thereof, to promote the proper functioning of the in the energy sector, in particular by avoiding distortions of competition (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 January 2020, Autoservizi Giordano, C\u2011513/18, EU:C:2020:59, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "3fdd72f9-3449-4c77-a7d5-4e3e5b3f7566", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Energy regulators should have the power to issue binding decisions in relation to electricity undertakings and to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties on electricity undertakings which fail to comply with their obligations or to propose that a competent court impose such penalties on them. Energy regulators should also be granted the power to decide, irrespective of the application of competition rules, on appropriate measures ensuring customer benefits through the promotion of effective competition necessary for the proper functioning of the in electricity. The establishment of virtual power plants \u2013 electricity release programmes whereby electricity undertakings are obliged to sell or to make available a certain volume of electricity or to grant access to part of their generation capacity to interested suppliers for a certain period of time \u2013 is one of the possible measures that can be used to promote effective competition and ensure the proper functioning of the market. Energy regulators should also be granted the power to contribute to ensuring high standards of universal and public service in compliance with market opening, to the protection of vulnerable customers, and to the full effectiveness of consumer protection measures. Those provisions should be without prejudice to both the Commission\u2019s powers concerning the application of competition rules including the examination of mergers with a Community dimension, and the rules on the internal market such as the free movement of capital. The independent body to which a party affected by the decision of a national regulator has a right to appeal could be a court or other tribunal empowered to conduct a judicial review."], "id": "6184ddab-2f86-4d45-b46b-e8fb7c4b0e11", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["That is the case irrespective of whether the measure in question ultimately does actually constitute aid. It is only where it is clear that no aid exists that the Commission is not permitted to issue a suspension injunction. Although it has not yet been clarified whether a progressive tax rate structure can constitute a selective advantage, the possibility that aid exists has not been clearly ruled out. Moreover, Hungary did not contest the Commission\u2019s negative decisions, which have now become final. Therefore, it is in fact clear in the present case that the measures at issue constitute aid that is not compatible with the ."], "id": "b19922fe-8367-4fa6-ae9c-aaa81a28b6ca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 36 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019) and of Article 3 of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94)."], "id": "778ce8e4-b907-4eb8-8961-ac1828f47f83", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["That amendment makes explicit what, in my opinion, could be inferred from the previous text, read in the light of the principle of energy solidarity: the exemption must not be detrimental \u2018to competition in the relevant markets which are likely to be affected by the investment, to the effective functioning of the in natural gas, to the efficient functioning of the regulated systems concerned, or to security of supply of natural gas in the Union\u2019."], "id": "77416cec-83c0-430c-8b75-424d48be0f1f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["42. Second, it follows from the very wording of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU that aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences is to be compatible with the . It follows that, according to the FEU Treaty, those types of measures, while having a \u2018compensatory\u2019 objective, are regarded as State aid within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article. That is a fortiori the case for damage caused by quite ordinary and foreseeable natural occurrences, such as the passage of wild birds. Furthermore, as the Commission has observed in its written observations, measures designed to make good the damage caused by protected animals, which are very frequent in the agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture sectors, are regularly classified as \u2018State aid\u2019 and are subject to examination of their compatibility within the meaning of the Guidelines in the agricultural and forestry sectors (26) or the Guidelines in the fishery and aquaculture sector."], "id": "83011102-94af-431a-b85f-71ad419b7472", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["It must be borne in mind that the Commission is required to initiate the formal investigation procedure if, following the preliminary examination referred to in Article 4 of Regulation 2015/1589, it was unable to satisfy itself that the notified measure is compatible with the . The same applies where the Commission entertains doubts as to the actual classification as \u2018aid\u2019, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU of that measure (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments of 10 May 2005, Italy v Commission, C\u2011400/99, EU:C:2005:275, paragraph 47; of 21 July 2011, Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission, C\u2011194/09 P, EU:C:2011:497, paragraph 60; and of 24 January 2013, 3F v Commission, C\u2011646/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:36, paragraph 27)."], "id": "cc00d971-ecd5-4ab0-ab1b-a919582318dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Annex I, point 26, to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (\u2018Unfair Commercial Practices Directive\u2019), must be interpreted as meaning that an activity consisting of the display in the inbox of an email service user of advertising messages in a form similar to that of real emails, and placed in the same position as those emails, falls within the concept of \u2018persistent and unwanted solicitations\u2019 of users of email services, within the meaning of that provision, if the display of those advertising messages is, first, sufficiently frequent and regular to be classified as \u2018persistent solicitations\u2019 and, second, may be classified as \u2018unwanted solicitations\u2019 in the absence of consent having been given by that user prior to that display."], "id": "c3a0b032-0ab7-40c6-9131-fb9c3b096d30", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Article 107(1) TFEU and Articles 32 to 34 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the levying of a national tax on the production and incorporation of electricity into the electricity system in the territory of a Member State, where that tax is not applied to the incorporation into that system of electricity produced in the other Member States."], "id": "16382e39-5b89-4cc7-8b85-be317cf0c725", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, it is impossible for the Court to review whether the conditions laid down in point 22 of the Guidelines were satisfied in the present case and whether they prevent the beneficiary from being eligible for the grant of rescue aid. Accordingly, the contested decision does not set out the reasons why the Commission found that it was not faced with serious difficulties in assessing the compatibility of the aid in question with the , for the purposes of the case-law cited in paragraph 37 above."], "id": "f4029a3c-f5ad-4724-96a6-95d5b033e0e6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The General Court accordingly did not err in law when, in paragraph 151 of the judgment under appeal, it held that, while the existence of a market failure may be a relevant factor for declaring State aid compatible with the , the absence of such a failure does not necessarily mean that the conditions laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU are not satisfied."], "id": "9766640d-3a29-40fe-b1c6-04cc1ff18bcf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, the application of Article 101 TFEU is justified where the practices it covers are implemented in the territory of the , irrespective of the place where they were formed. If the applicability of prohibitions laid down under competition law were made to depend on the place where an agreement, decision or concerted practice was formed, the result would obviously be to give undertakings an easy means of evading those prohibitions (judgment of 27 September 1988, Ahlstr\u00f6m Osakeyhti\u00f6 and Others v Commission, 89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85 and 125/85 to 129/85, EU:C:1988:447, paragraph 16)."], "id": "ba7c5470-edb7-43e8-8454-458a503786f1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, as the Polish Government correctly noted, reading Article 36(1) of the Life Assurance Directive in the light of recital 52 thereof, it becomes clear that the purpose of distinguishing those two moments is to offer a consumer a certain period of time during which he or she can take full advantage of the diversity and increased competition (in the for assurance) so as to \u2018enable him/her to choose the contract best suited to his/her needs\u2019."], "id": "ce7a2e84-7824-46ca-bf7f-b7c4bbd67200", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, it should be recalled that, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 702/2014, individual aid granted under aid schemes is compatible with the and is exempted from the notification requirement under Article 108(3) TFEU if it meets the conditions laid down in Chapter I and the specific conditions for the relevant category of aid in Chapter III of that regulation."], "id": "ff41bf26-d0a8-426e-a585-48a837d34991", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, without it being necessary to examine the pleas in law other than the fourth put forward by the appellant in support of its action, it must be concluded that the assessment of whether the sale of the N\u00fcrburgring assets to Capricorn involved the grant to Capricorn of aid incompatible with the raised doubts, within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, which should have led the Commission to initiate the procedure referred to in Article 108(2) TFEU."], "id": "b9e093a2-2792-487b-8754-32c6cc86ba04", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, national rules laying down limitation periods must be devised in such a way as to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the objectives of providing legal certainty and ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time as general principles of EU law and, on the other, the effective and efficient application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in order to safeguard the public interest in preventing the operation of the being distorted by agreements or practices harmful to competition."], "id": "6dae4d7c-b66c-4563-b742-87de9c53c1aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["8 Article 107 of that directive provided: \u2018The services referred to in Article 106 must meet the following conditions: (a) they must be labour-intensive; (b) they must largely be provided direct to final consumers; (c) they must be mainly local and not likely to cause distortion of competition. There must also be a close link between the decrease in prices resulting from the rate reduction and the foreseeable increase in demand and employment. Application of a reduced rate must not prejudice the smooth functioning of the .\u2019"], "id": "f3e91cd1-98c0-467d-b611-4e6fdfa163bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Point 11 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (\u2018Unfair Commercial Practices Directive\u2019) must be interpreted as meaning that, where editorial content is used to promote a product, that promotion is \u2018paid for\u2019 by the trader also where that trader has provided the media operator with a benefit which consists of goods or services or assets of any other kind."], "id": "54a2cd2b-43b5-4a6f-9f42-0794111c23dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, I would also point out that in my Opinion of 3 June 2021, in Case C\u201157/19 P, Tempus Energy (currently pending), I explain that in that case the General Court\u2019s approach must be rejected and its judgment set aside because the General Court made errors of law by finding that the notified aid measure gave rise to serious doubts regarding its compatibility with the . In my view, the General Court erred in that regard by taking into account, as a primary indicator of doubts, the length and circumstances of the pre-notification contacts and the complexity and novelty of the measure and further erred in faulting the Commission for failing to investigate appropriately certain aspects of the UK capacity market."], "id": "bb62ccf9-7100-4414-b76a-67400b36bc75", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["(Access to documents \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 \u2013 Documents relating to a procedure for the recovery of State aid following a decision declaring the aid incompatible with the and ordering its recovery \u2013 Refusal to grant access \u2013 Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits \u2013 Overriding public interest \u2013 Principle of non-discrimination \u2013 Obligation to state reasons)"], "id": "bb055f09-dcd6-4ba6-9cd3-5a3fda8d320f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, since Directive 2000/35, adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC (now Article 114 TFEU), falls within the framework of the approximation of the laws of the Member States, the object of which is the establishment and functioning of the , account may be taken, for the purposes of its interpretation, of the concepts of \u2018goods\u2019 and \u2018services\u2019 within the meaning of the provisions of the FEU Treaty providing for the free movement of goods and services, and the Court\u2019s case-law interpreting those fundamental freedoms (see, by analogy, judgment of 9 July 2020, RL (Directive combating late payment), C\u2011199/19, EU:C:2020:548, paragraph 30)."], "id": "b5a5c237-e0f7-41d6-a7e8-93db3a98aba0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018If Bulgaria or Romania has failed to implement commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations, causing a serious breach of the functioning of the , including any commitments in all sectoral policies which concern economic activities with cross-border effect, or an imminent risk of such breach the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years after accession, upon motivated request of a Member State or on its own initiative, take appropriate measures."], "id": "35f9699c-feee-4af9-8042-6ffed47f3387", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, after pointing out, in paragraph 111 of that judgment, that that measure \u2018was challenged in three respects by various operators who were supposed to benefit from it\u2019, without providing further details as to the grounds for those statements or as to any problems they raised, the General Court concluded that that circumstance was among those which, according to paragraph 115 of that judgment, constituted an indication capable of establishing the existence of doubts as to the compatibility of the measure at issue with the ."], "id": "5b8c41f4-238a-401b-b529-e3e53180f2e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it is apparent from the objectives pursued by that directive that it provides for a harmonised taxation regime for energy products and electricity designed, inter alia, as is apparent from recitals 2 to 5 and 24 thereof, to promote the smooth functioning of the in the energy sector by avoiding, inter alia, distortions of competition (see, to that effect, judgments of 7 March 2018, Cristal Union, C\u201131/17, EU:C:2018:168, paragraph 29, and of 27 June 2018, Turbog\u00e1s, C\u201190/17, EU:C:2018:498, paragraph 34)."], "id": "d41343cf-263a-4e6b-ab5d-d289097d066d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["That article nonetheless requires that \u2018full regard\u2019 be had, in particular, to Article 86 EC Treaty (now Article 106 TFEU). In addition to Article 14 TFEU, Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest, and Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), that provision concerns the compliance of \u2018services of general economic interest\u2019 with the Treaty. In other words, Article 106(2) TFEU is aimed at reconciling the Member States\u2019 interest in using certain undertakings as an instrument of economic or social policy with the European Union\u2019s interest in ensuring compliance with the rules on competition and preserving the unity of the ."], "id": "65450a48-529f-4d62-a859-63072a767940", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["However, the first step, namely the acquisition of a 48.5% stake in Morpol, was closed before it was notified to the European Commission. In the Commission\u2019s view, the acquisition of that stake was sufficient to confer control over Morpol, and, therefore, it constituted a concentration for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The Commission therefore found in the decision at issue that, in closing the acquisition of the 48.5% stake in Morpol before it was notified and before it was declared compatible with the , Marine Harvest had infringed, first, the notification obligation provided for by Article 4(1) of Regulation No 139/2004, and, second, the standstill obligation under Article 7(1) of that regulation. Consequently, the Commission imposed two fines of EUR 10 million each for the infringement of those provisions."], "id": "eaf3e582-cc49-447b-b3d5-31a130c22845", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["According to case-law, Directive 2014/40 has a twofold objective of facilitating the smooth functioning of the for tobacco and related products, while taking as a base a high level of protection of human health, especially for young people. As the referring court notes, an image which the consumer associates with tobacco packaging may, in the same way as a faithful depiction, trigger a purchasing impulse. That impulse may be combated by the required health warnings. Thus, a broad interpretation of the concept of images of unit packets within the meaning of Article 8(8) as covering also images which the consumer associates with tobacco packaging would allow for those warnings to be affixed on those images, thereby discouraging the purchase of tobacco products and enhancing the protection of human health."], "id": "6e59bd7b-5e22-4eba-b320-944b50bf8091", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, it must be pointed out that this plea lacks any independent content. Under such a plea, the applicant may, in order to preserve the procedural rights which it enjoys under the formal investigation procedure, rely only on pleas which show that the assessment of the information and evidence which the Commission had or could have had at its disposal during the preliminary examination phase of the measure notified ought to have raised doubts as to the compatibility of that measure with the (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 December 2008, R\u00e9gie Networks, C\u2011333/07, EU:C:2008:764, paragraph 81; of 9 July 2009, 3F v Commission, C\u2011319/07 P, EU:C:2009:435, paragraph 35; and of 24 May 2011, Commission v Kronoply and Kronotex, C\u201183/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, paragraph 59), such as the insufficient or incomplete nature of the examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination phase or the existence of complaints submitted by third parties. It should be noted that the fourth plea repeats in condensed form the arguments raised under the first to third pleas, without identifying specific evidence relating to potential serious difficulties."], "id": "5f18725d-3595-4e51-adfb-a81fce0fc1b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The same is true of paragraph 72 of the judgment under appeal, from which it is apparent that, in order to establish the existence of doubts as to the compatibility of the measure at issue with the , Tempus could rely not only on all relevant information that was available to the Commission, but also on all information that \u2018could have been available\u2019 to that institution. By reasoning in this way, the General Court implied that the Commission should have had doubts as to whether an aid measure was compatible with the internal market solely on the ground that there was a relevant piece of information which could have been available to it without it being necessary to show that that institution was actually aware either of that information itself or of other information obliging it, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice cited in paragraph 45 above, to go beyond a mere examination of the information brought to its notice."], "id": "00e72503-8a85-4e1d-a47e-5b2eea7b089e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The creation of an integrated market for electronic payments in euro, with no distinction between national and cross-border payments is necessary for the proper functioning of the . To that end, the single euro payments area (SEPA) project aims to develop common Union-wide payment services to replace current national payment services. As a result of the introduction of open, common payment standards, rules and practices, and through integrated payment processing, SEPA should provide Union citizens and businesses with secure, competitively priced, user-friendly, and reliable payment services in euro. This should apply to SEPA payments within and across national boundaries under the same basic conditions and in accordance with the same rights and obligations, regardless of location within the Union. \u2026"], "id": "e94ed1db-9844-47db-8b4b-56f5f3821db4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, the General Court did not indicate either the specific point to which the Commission\u2019s doubts had to relate or the specific element which should have given rise to such doubts. It should also be noted that, although the General Court referred, in paragraphs 136 to 145 of the judgment under appeal, to certain elements relating to the potential of DSR that the Commission could take into consideration, it is not apparent from reading that part of the judgment under appeal that one or other of those elements was such as to cause the Commission to have doubts as to whether the potential of DSR had actually been taken into account in the design of the measure at issue and, consequently, as to the compatibility of the latter with the ."], "id": "4ef3a5ab-2b64-4b2e-81ab-e4cdfe1407bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, entitled \u2018Formal investigation procedure\u2019, provides that the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure is to summarise the relevant matters of fact and law, include a preliminary assessment by the Commission of whether the proposed measure constitutes aid, set out the grounds for doubting its compatibility with the and invite the Member State concerned and other interested parties to submit their comments within a specified period."], "id": "1daf40ba-d5b5-403a-99d9-d2ca5c630c0c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be noted that restoring the situation prior to the payment of aid which was unlawful or incompatible with the is a necessary requirement for preserving the effectiveness of the provisions of the Treaties concerning State aid (judgment of 7 March 2018, SNCF Mobilit\u00e9s v Commission, C\u2011127/16 P, EU:C:2018:165, paragraph 104 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "19244a23-ca5d-481c-aae1-2331af4dbb3e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, it must be noted that, even if the interested parties in the present case had been given the opportunity to submit comments on the 2014 Guidelines before the decision at issue was adopted and had succeeded in showing that the operating aid met the relevant criteria laid down in those guidelines, the Commission would, in any event, for the reasons set out in recitals 244 and 245 of that decision, having been fully entitled to conclude that that aid is incompatible with the . By rejecting the Commission\u2019s arguments that the decision at issue would have been identical if the interested parties in the present case had been invited to express their views on the relevance of the 2014 Guidelines, the General Court therefore disregarded the case-law set out in paragraph 81 above and misinterpreted the decision at issue."], "id": "3c470fb0-2b1a-47b5-b2fd-f8e69ec0006a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the question referred is that Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC must be interpreted as not precluding that the effects of a decision of a regulatory authority, referred to in Article 41(11) of that directive, extend to the situation of the parties to the dispute before that authority which prevailed between them before the emergence of that dispute, inter alia, as regards a contract for the transmission of natural gas, by requiring a party to that dispute to bring that contract into conformity with Union law for the entire contractual period."], "id": "c21c19e0-ff42-4a8b-ae37-87b16ebcd008", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The Italian Government contends that Article 25(16) of Sicilian Regional Law No 19/2005 must be regarded as compatible with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. In the view of the Italian Government, that legislation fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 26 of Regulation No 702/2014 and it is thus exempted from the notification requirement set out in Article 108(3) TFEU. That legislation should be regarded as compatible with the , given the Commission\u2019s finding, in the 2002 decision, that similar measures fell within the scope of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. That finding should be confirmed in respect of Article 25(16) of Sicilian Regional Law No 19/2005."], "id": "15546702-3abe-4223-a1f3-4cf19dad9840", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["On 26 April 2020, the Commission adopted Decision C(2020) 2795 final on State aid SA.56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) \u2013 Germany \u2013 Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID\u201119 outbreak to Condor (\u2018the contested decision\u2019), by which it concluded that the measure at issue constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and was compatible with the on the basis of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU."], "id": "557b2dfd-3fd7-4b62-bd6d-78df4d606f23", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["14. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Green Network describe as follows the green certificate scheme in force in Italy prior to the 2011 reform: \u201812 Article 11(1) of Legislative Decree No 79 on the implementation of Directive 96/92/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the in electricity (OJ 1997 L 27, p. 20)] (\u201cLegislative Decree No 79/1999\u201d) requires operators having produced or imported electricity to feed into the national grid, during the following year, a quota of electricity produced from renewable energy sources (\u201cgreen electricity\u201d) from installations that entered into service or increased their production after the entry into force of that decree. Pursuant to Article 11(3) of the same decree, this requirement may be discharged by, inter alia, purchasing all or part of that quota from other producers, provided that the electricity fed into the national grid is green, or by purchasing green certificates from the designated national grid manager, Gestore servizi energetici SpA (\u201cGSE\u201d), since 1 November 2005. To that end, the producers and importers concerned must either submit certificates showing that a quota of electricity produced or imported has been produced from renewable energy sources or buy green certificates. 13 Article 4(6) of the Ministerial Decree laying down rules for the implementation of standards on electricity produced from renewable energy sources under Article 11(1), (2) and (3) of Legislative Decree No 79 of 16 March 1999 ([\u2026] \u201cMinisterial Decree of 11 November 1999\u201d), provides: \u201cThe obligation in Article 11(1) and (2) of Legislative Decree [No 79/1999] may be performed by importing, wholly or in part, electricity generated in installations that entered into service after 1 April 1999, drawing on renewable energy sources, provided that those installations are situated in foreign countries that adopt analogous instruments for the promotion and encouragement of renewable energy based on market mechanisms affording the same opportunity to installations situated in Italy. In that case, the application mentioned in paragraph 3 is submitted by the holder of the obligation at the same time as the contract for the purchase of the electricity generated by the installation and the authorisation for the feeding of that electricity into the national grid. All data shall be certified by the authority designated under Article 20(3) of Directive [96/92], in the country in which the installation is situated. In the case of countries which are not members of the European Union, acceptance of the application is subject to the conclusion of an agreement between the national grid manager and the equivalent local authority determining the arrangements for the necessary verifications\u201d. 14 Pursuant to Article 20(3) of Legislative Decree No 387 on the implementation of Directive [2001/77] on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market ([\u2026]; \u201cLegislative Decree No 387/2003\u201d), operators which import electricity produced in other Member States of the European Union may request exemption of GSE from the obligation to purchase green certificates under Article 11 of Legislative Decree No 79/1999 for the proportion of electricity imported, by presenting it a certified copy of the guarantee of origin issued in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2001/77. In the case of import of electricity produced in a third State, the same Article 20(3) makes that exemption conditional on the conclusion, between the Italian Republic and the third State concerned, of an agreement requiring the electricity concerned to be produced from renewable energy sources and guaranteed as such according to the same arrangements as those provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2001/77. 15 Such an agreement was concluded on 6 March 2007 between the competent Italian ministries and the Federal Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications Department of the Swiss Confederation. That agreement provides for the mutual recognition of guarantees of origin of electricity imported from 2006, the year in which the Swiss Confederation enacted legislation in conformity with Directive 2001/77. 16 By virtue of Article 4 of Legislative Decree No 387/2003, GSE is responsible for monitoring compliance with the obligation under Legislative Decree No 79/1999 and for reporting cases of breach to the AEEG (Autorit\u00e0 per l\u2019energia elettrica e il gas, Electricity and Gas Authority) which has the power, in such cases, to impose the penalties provided for by Law No 481 on the rules relating to competition and the regulation of public utility services \u2013 Establishment of regulatory authorities for public utility services \u2026\u2019. 2. Legislative Decree No 28/2011 (8)"], "id": "514eb810-6236-493a-be2f-56e8ed664d9a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["However, as the Commission submits, in essence, it follows from an overall reading of recitals 244 to 254 of the decision at issue that recitals 244 and 245 of that decision on their own formed the basis for the finding that the operating aid was incompatible with the , irrespective of any application of the 2014 Guidelines to that aid, with the finding in the decision at issue that that aid was incompatible with the internal market having two autonomous legal bases. It should be noted in that regard that the General Court itself acknowledged, in paragraph 86 of the judgment under appeal, that the conclusion that the operating aid was incompatible with the internal market in so far as the investment aid itself was incompatible with the internal market does not stem from a condition expressly laid down in the Regional aid Guidelines or in the 2014 Guidelines."], "id": "5c9ca157-4df7-4773-9cf3-7ad7ed195f5c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission stated in that decision that the measure at issue constituted State aid which was incompatible with the and that it had been unlawfully put into effect. The Polish authorities had to cancel permanently all payments suspended pursuant to the decision to initiate the procedure. Since the measure at issue had not in actual fact been implemented, the Commission considered that there was no need to recover aid from beneficiaries."], "id": "e026815e-0174-450e-866f-ff345612ef95", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Far less is known about situations in which a private party requires another private party to have its residence at a specified location. In terms of EU law, obscurity prevails. Is it lawful that, in many instances, it is virtually impossible for a customer who does not reside in the same Member State as that in which the bank is established to obtain a mortgage from that bank? Can an insurer refuse to provide coverage for a potential customer located in another Member State? To a layman, at the very least, such situations are difficult to reconcile with the objective of an . While for some such practices are incompatible with the rationale of an internal market \u2018in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties\u2019, others would point to a supposedly fundamental difference between the activity of public and private entities and the fact that in terms of underlying logic, at least initially, public activity was to be governed by the fundamental freedoms and private activity by the provisions of competition law. The rest was left to \u2018the market\u2019 itself."], "id": "0012a008-9e2e-4869-887e-428d97cf6342", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19), Article 27 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64), and Article 5(5) of, and point 29 of Annex I to, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (\u2018Unfair Commercial Practices Directive\u2019) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)."], "id": "05776670-34b8-4483-8550-0cf62c94388e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In order to allow citizens to avail themselves, with all legal certainty, of the benefits offered by the , this Regulation should enable them to know in advance which law will apply to their succession. Harmonised conflict-of-laws rules should be introduced in order to avoid contradictory results. The main rule should ensure that the succession is governed by a predictable law with which it is closely connected. For reasons of legal certainty and in order to avoid the fragmentation of the succession, that law should govern the succession as a whole, that is to say, all of the property forming part of the estate, irrespective of the nature of the assets and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third State."], "id": "ed0fad22-bbf2-4e4f-b5b1-db62a3e61da6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Kingdom of Denmark does not consider Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1151/2012 to be as clear as the Commission does. It argues that the fact that that provision concerns products \u2018produced or marketed in that Member State\u2019 is not sufficient in itself to determine the scope of application of that regulation. The existence of unlawful use which has to be prevented under that provision depends on whether the cheese is intended to be marketed on the or exported to third countries. The Kingdom of Denmark agrees with the Commission that protection is to be afforded already at the moment of production, but only if the name registered as a PDO is used unlawfully at that moment. However, the use of registered names on products intended for export to third countries is not an unlawful use. There is therefore no obligation to prevent the use of the name \u2018Feta\u2019 for cheese produced in Denmark, but intended to be exported to third countries. Had the EU legislature intended that exports to third countries should be covered by Regulation No 1151/2012, it would have had to state so explicitly."], "id": "6f4cfebf-1865-43ff-b016-2fc68447a8ba", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["It is settled case-law that, as the criterion of serious difficulties is objective in nature, the existence of such difficulties must be looked for not only in the circumstances in which the Commission\u2019s decision was adopted after the preliminary investigation but also in the assessments upon which the Commission relied. It follows that the lawfulness of a decision not to raise objections, based on Article 4(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, depends on the question of whether the assessment of the information and evidence which the Commission had at its disposal during the preliminary investigation phase of the measure notified should objectively have raised doubts as to the compatibility of that measure with the ."], "id": "217de0d3-d403-40cf-8ee0-6995705371a7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In the first part, Hungary relies on Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) to claim that the EU legislation relating to the freedom to provide services gives effect to the fundamental principle that every Member State must recognise the terms and conditions of employment applied in conformity with EU law by another Member State, and that the protection of the rights of posted workers is sufficiently guaranteed by the legislation of the State of origin."], "id": "f0ba7945-6bd3-4585-bba0-1e313fa14d71", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, without it being necessary to examine the remainder of the arguments put forward by the appellant in support of its action, in so far as it seeks annulment of the second contested decision, it must be concluded that the assessment of whether the sale of the N\u00fcrburgring assets to Capricorn involved the grant to Capricorn of aid incompatible with the raised doubts, within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, which should have led the Commission to initiate the procedure referred to in Article 108(2) TFEU."], "id": "1667e5c3-03e0-4176-a9a0-4ba7cdcc0800", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, recital 60 of Directive 2009/28 sets out the function of guaranteed access, the effects to which its implementation leads and the objective pursued. According to that recital, the function of guaranteed access is to ensure that \u2018all electricity sold and supported obtains access to the grid\u2019. Having regard to its function, the implementation of guaranteed access necessarily has the effect of \u2018allowing the use of a maximum amount of electricity from renewable energy sources from installations connected to the grid\u2019. Finally, the objective pursued by the EU legislature consisted in \u2018integrating renewable energy sources into the in electricity\u2019 and developing further the priority dispatching granted to generating installations which use renewable energy sources."], "id": "a5afd217-fada-4b62-8d65-7e74c3eeacc7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Do the \u201cpolluter pays\u201d principle in Article 191(2) [TFEU], the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the [Charter], and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive [2005/89], in so far as they seek to ensure \u201cthe proper functioning of the for electricity\u201d and call on Member States to ensure \u201cthat any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors\u201d, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes (and given that waste management and storage are already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability), and that distorts the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?"], "id": "652e64a0-166c-4c8f-8584-9f9f8ff3eba1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["On 20 June 2020, the applicants sent the Commission the complaint form relating to unlawful State aid, as referred to in Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9). In that form, the applicants stated that the aid schemes resulting from pricing orders 2006, 1/2010 and 8/2010 had been implemented even though the Commission had never ruled on their compatibility with the and that the absence of a Commission decision created what they claim is a legal vacuum detrimental to all French producers of electricity from photovoltaic energy sources, in so far as the income from contracts concluded at the price laid down by those pricing orders could be called into question and be subject to recovery measures. According to the information provided by the applicants in that form, the support mechanisms for electricity production from photovoltaic energy sources resulting from pricing orders 2006, 1/2010 and 8/2010 are compatible with the internal market. In reliance upon Article 108(1) TFEU and Article 12(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, the applicants, in that form, and more specifically in points 3.4, 8 and 9.3 thereof, \u2018[asked] the Commission to make an express finding as to the compatibility of the aid schemes resulting from [those] orders\u2019."], "id": "691fe6b6-858f-42b8-a645-506122a052fc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In other words, whether or not an activity is regarded as economic has a major consequence, in that it is precisely that assessment that determines whether the competition rules laid down by the Treaty are applicable to the factual situation under consideration. Thus, whenever the Court has to make such an assessment, it is inevitably \u2014 as Advocate General Maduro explained in his Opinion in FENIN v Commission \u2014 entering \u2018dangerous territory\u2019, since it is being asked to find a balance between protection of undistorted competition on the and respect for the powers of the Member States."], "id": "01d9f1d2-b38d-4aac-a32b-df2fd2787449", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing items of legislation and case-law, it is understandable that the Court should have had no hesitation in classifying media pluralism as an overriding reason in the public interest, the protection of which may justify the adoption of national measures that restrict freedom of establishment (and other freedoms). It has also pointed out its importance in a democratic society."], "id": "407d7259-de9f-42f0-bbfe-0bd67d5f3f05", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 16, p. 74. In its judgment of 19 March 2015, E.ON F\u00f6ldg\u00e1z Trade (C\u2011510/13, EU:C:2015:189, paragraphs 30 to 35), the Court held that Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94) was not applicable ratione temporis, so it did not have the opportunity to interpret Article 41(17) of that directive, which is identical to Article 37(17) of Directive 2009/72."], "id": "87721f7d-1d46-4200-890f-5e9b22a03ee9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["It is necessary to specify the criteria according to which tariffs for access to the network are determined, in order to ensure that they fully comply with the principle of non-discrimination and the needs of a well-functioning and take fully into account the need for system integrity and reflect the actual costs incurred, in so far as such costs correspond to those of an efficient and structurally comparable network operator and are transparent, whilst including appropriate return on investments, and, where appropriate, taking account of the benchmarking of tariffs by the regulatory authorities."], "id": "f1582fc3-cc73-48f0-98ef-289f9f67fe7f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Fifthly, should the fee for the use of facilities installed on, over or under public property not take into account the objectives in Article 8 of the Framework Directive and, in particular, the promotion of competition in the provision of electronic communications networks and services and the development of the for those networks and services, that fee would be inconsistent with Article 13 of the Authorisation Directive."], "id": "4a366e59-4bef-4d7c-b461-f470bcdeaf9a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, it must be pointed out that that plea lacks any independent content. Under that plea, the applicant may, in order to preserve the procedural rights which it enjoys under the formal investigation procedure, rely only on pleas which show that the assessment of the information and evidence which the Commission had or could have had at its disposal during the preliminary examination phase of the measure notified ought to have raised doubts as to the compatibility of that measure with the (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 December 2008, R\u00e9gie Networks, C\u2011333/07, EU:C:2008:764, paragraph 81; of 9 July 2009, 3F v Commission, C\u2011319/07 P, EU:C:2009:435, paragraph 35; and of 24 May 2011, Commission v Kronoply and Kronotex, C\u201183/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, paragraph 59), such as the insufficient or incomplete nature of the examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination phase or the existence of complaints submitted by third parties. It should be noted that the third plea repeats in condensed form the arguments raised under the first and second pleas, without identifying specific evidence relating to potential serious difficulties."], "id": "5ebf07e8-aad5-402a-bbd2-acc2bb9db966", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["A fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter must be safeguarded. The existing exceptions and limitations to the rights as set out by the Member States have to be reassessed in the light of the new electronic environment. Existing differences in the exceptions and limitations to certain restricted acts have direct negative effects on the functioning of the of copyright and related rights. Such differences could well become more pronounced in view of the further development of transborder exploitation of works and cross-border activities. In order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, such exceptions and limitations should be defined more harmoniously. The degree of their harmonisation should be based on their impact on the smooth functioning of the internal market.\u2019"], "id": "ba73e66f-676c-46e1-b64a-6e0503dbb55e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["33. The GBER does not, in any of its provisions on research and development aid, exclude the obligation to notify by reference to the type of the beneficiary entity. Rather, the GBER takes a functional approach: it is the aid for the activities of fundamental research, industrial research, experimental development and feasibility studies that fulfils other criteria set out in Chapter III, Section IV, of the GBER that is exempt from the notification obligation (4) and thus presumed to be compatible with the ."], "id": "4c4522dd-dc0d-4f5f-94a4-16cfdd95e2da", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["It should further be recalled that Directive 2019/692 amended Directive 2009/73 in order (according to recital 3 thereof) to \u2018address obstacles to the completion of the in natural gas which result from the non-application of Union market rules to gas transmission lines to and from third countries. The amendments introduced by this Directive are intended to ensure that the rules applicable to gas transmission lines connecting two or more Member States are also applicable, within the Union, to gas transmission lines to and from third countries\u2019."], "id": "c727bac5-94d1-4fbc-9913-d14d64e8dcbd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["E.ON F\u00f6ldg\u00e1z Trade concerned the standing of an operator in the Hungarian market in natural gas to challenge, as a holder of a gas transmission authorisation, a decision of an NRA which amended the rules of the gas network code for deciding on applications for long-term capacity allocation. The Court found that although Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC did not contain specific provisions on the remedies available to such an operator, the NRA was subject to EU rules concerning access of market operators to the natural gas transmission network in adopting its decision. On this basis, the Court held that those EU rules and the principle of effective judicial protection guaranteed by EU law ensured judicial review for third parties whose rights were potentially infringed by the NRA decision in question. As with Tele2 Telecommunication, T-Mobile Austria and Arcor, E.ON F\u00f6ldg\u00e1z Trade concerned an NRA decision which fell within the material scope of the relevant EU rules, namely, a decision relating to access to the gas transmission network."], "id": "4c0c1300-0f8b-4b18-81e4-79efca340c8a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Article 194 TFEU provides in paragraph 1 that, in the context of the establishment and functioning of the and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, European Union policy on energy is to aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to ensure the functioning of the energy market, ensure security of energy supply in the European Union, promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy and promote the interconnection of energy networks (judgment of 4 May 2016, Commission v Austria, C\u2011346/14, EU:C:2016:322, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "9b969ba1-014e-4fda-8b4a-310eff18b0a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["It is a truth universally acknowledged that the fundamental freedoms which make up the are allergic to residence requirements. Under the fundamental freedoms, removing barriers based on residence requirements has, as it were, been in the spotlight of the activity of both the EU legislature and the Court. In this connection, the Court has consistently held that national rules under which a distinction is drawn on the basis of residence are liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States, as non-residents are in the majority of cases foreigners. Given that the fundamental freedoms are primarily addressed at Member States, cases dealt with by the Court mainly concern State measures imposing (national) residence requirements."], "id": "0f804459-fe74-429f-9294-1c279fed1be1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Second, even if that directive pursues a wider range of goals such as consumer and environmental protection, the is \u2018the key objective\u2019. The focus is still on cross-border access for new suppliers of electricity from different energy sources as well as for new providers of power generation. As explained by recital 59 of Directive 2009/72, \u2018the development of a true internal market in electricity, through a network connected across the Community, should be one of the main goals of this Directive\u2019. In other words, Directive 2009/72 aims essentially at establishing an open and competitive internal market in electricity which enables consumers freely to choose their suppliers and those suppliers freely to deliver their products to their customers, create a level playing field in this market, ensure a secure supply of energy and a sustainable climate change policy."], "id": "bafdd028-cfe1-4be2-ab2e-4db94e89628a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The tax harmonisation measures taken to complete the should include the establishment of a common system for cooperation between the Member States, in particular as concerns exchange of information, whereby the Member States\u2019 competent authorities are to assist each other and to cooperate with the [European] Commission in order to ensure the proper application of VAT on supplies of goods and services, intra-Community acquisition of goods and importation of goods."], "id": "b92940dc-5431-4039-8a1a-1b165a86ea2c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, if the Court takes into account the criteria adopted by the Commission for the determination of the lump sum payment in the present case, the Commission\u2019s assessment of seriousness does not appear to be the result of any error, having regard to the importance of the provisions of EU law infringed and the effects on public and private interests. It should be pointed out that Directive 2015/849 is a key legal instrument in the prevention of the use of the Union financial system for the purposes of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Situated in the context of establishing an effective and genuine Security Union, that directive builds on previous directives and international activities in the field in order to strengthen the legal framework for combating money laundering and terrorist financing in the EU. Similar to what the Court has held in respect of other directives, Romania\u2019s failure to adopt and notify transposition measures may be considered to impact the proper functioning of the internal market and thus has a certain degree of seriousness."], "id": "027f425b-5d00-49b2-9c77-cb057ec0bd80", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The obligation to pay illegality interest is also recognised, in principle, in situations where the aid does not have to be repaid, because it is compatible with the . However, in the present case, TV 2 and Denmark, supported by the Netherlands and Austria, contend that the aid in question constituted compensation for the provision of services of general economic interest, which must have implications for the obligation to pay illegality interest."], "id": "3cd1ecf7-b6e3-457b-8ea7-903a42edb9d5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The scope of the Member States\u2019 discretion in the transposition into national law of a particular exception or limitation referred to in Article 5(2) or (3) of Directive 2001/29 must be determined on a case-by-case basis, in particular, according to the wording of the provision in question, the degree of the harmonisation of the exceptions and limitations intended by the EU legislature being based on their impact on the smooth functioning of the , as stated in recital 31 of Directive 2001/29. Judgment of 29 July 2019, Funke Medien NRW (C\u2011469/17, EU:C:2019:623, paragraph 40)."], "id": "d134fa1a-8864-4200-a104-bec86e7875ca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["297 As regards, more specifically, the aim of the authorisation procedure, of which the identification procedure set out in Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 forms part, Article 55 of that regulation states that its aim is essentially to ensure the proper functioning of the while assuring that the risks from substances of very high concern are properly controlled and that these substances are progressively replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable (see judgments of 13 July 2017, VECCO and Others v Commission, C\u2011651/15 P, EU:C:2017:543, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited, and of 30 April 2015, Polynt and Sitre v ECHA, T\u2011134/13, not published, EU:T:2015:254, paragraph 106 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "ffaea8f3-fe14-41cf-9012-57c63240a5a6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["56 Whilst an assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for the national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU (judgment 21 November 2013, Deutsche Lufthansa, C\u2011284/12, EU:C:2013:755, paragraph 28)."], "id": "665b3c61-02d0-4957-9572-4525ef3f63e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["3 Article 41 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1), entitled \u2018Investment aid for the promotion of energy from renewable sources\u2019, provides: \u20181. Investment aid for the promotion of energy from renewable energy sources shall be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) of the Treaty and shall be exempted from the notification requirement of Article 108(3) of the Treaty, provided that the conditions laid down in this Article and in Chapter I are fulfilled. \u2026 7. The aid intensity shall not exceed: (a) 45% of the eligible costs if the eligible costs are calculated on the basis of point (6)(a) or point (6)(b); (b) 30% of the eligible cost[s] if the eligible costs are calculated on the basis of point (6)(c). 8. The aid intensity may be increased by 20 percentage points for aid granted to small undertakings and by 10 percentage points for aid granted to medium-sized undertakings. \u2026\u2019 Regulation 2015/1589"], "id": "3d7ea707-4760-4994-9a76-4ee2f3d4acd6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Internal Market", "masked_sentences": ["1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1), and of Article 11 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the (\u2018Directive on electronic commerce\u2019) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1)."], "id": "e043cdf8-277f-4240-8959-1705a59b1e61", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In recitals 196 and 197 of the decision at issue, the Commission stated that in the present case, it would apply the principles laid down in the 2014 Guidelines as regards operating aid. In recital 245 of the decision at issue, the Commission also expressly referred to the 2014 Guidelines, stating that the fact that the operating aid was incompatible with the , because the investment aid itself was incompatible with the internal market, was equally relevant in the context of the 2014 Guidelines. As the General Court observed in paragraph 84 of the judgment under appeal, the Commission also applied the first criterion of the 2014 Guidelines in recital 246 of the decision at issue, whereas in its appeal, the Commission submits that it applied only the criterion in paragraph 113(a) of the 2014 Guidelines."], "id": "5f3db8b8-7379-4b9b-b360-0582512277ee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Directive 2007/64 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 13 January 2018, by Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the , amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64 (OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35). However, given the date at which the material facts arose, the dispute in the main proceedings is still governed by Directive 2007/64."], "id": "2f70fe28-1a66-491d-8585-bf3a0289e700", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["58. As regards the second aspect, I would emphasise that, when the \u2018fishery de minimis\u2019 regulation is applicable, the Member State may either notify the compensation at issue to the Commission for its approval as aid compatible with the or merely classify it as \u2018de minimis aid\u2019. It follows that, in this instance, the Latvian authorities could lawfully classify that compensation as \u2018de minimis aid\u2019."], "id": "d1d53506-dde0-4237-a134-e04184a0ca7e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Internal Market", "masked_sentences": ["Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the (\u2018Directive on electronic commerce\u2019) must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, the operator of a video-sharing platform and the operator of a file-hosting and -sharing platform can benefit from the exemption under that provision in respect of all liability that may result from the files that they store at the request of users of their platforms."], "id": "3030db7f-b8fd-4ed0-9851-053d03c05e59", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["15 In the electricity or telecommunications sectors, the respective instruments provide that the national regulatory authorities are to be responsible for ensuring the resolution of disputes between undertakings (see Article 5(1)(b) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36), and Article 59(3)(e), (5)(b) and (6)(c) of Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 125))."], "id": "c40adf04-4ad8-4256-9262-8a627d6a0dfd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Internal Market", "masked_sentences": ["58 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Information System (\u2018the IMI Regulation\u2019), in so far as it requires the penalties provided for therein to be proportionate, has direct effect and may thus be relied on by individuals before national courts against a Member State which has transposed it incorrectly."], "id": "e2d0ffff-b4bf-4e2f-a6d3-2ec08c450ca1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["The field of tax law falls in principle within the competence of the Member States. Exceptions under Article 113 TFEU are turnover tax, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation. For this reason, there are only a few rules of EU law in the field of direct taxation. In particular, Article 114(2) TFEU excludes fiscal provisions and Article 115 TFEU permits only EU laws and regulations which directly affect the establishment or functioning of the ."], "id": "5e3809b0-9e3c-482e-9df2-828459f1383a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the objectives, it can be inferred from recital 3 of Directive 2009/72 that the objective of this directive is to achieve a fully open and competitive in electricity in which all consumers can freely choose their supplier and in which all suppliers can freely supply their products. However, a priori, unlike obligations to provide a given service or to deliver particular goods, financing obligations are not likely to undermine such an objective, and even if they do, they are likely at least to do so to a much lesser extent."], "id": "1a64193e-685c-42a0-9a48-dd68c7848f7d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["(Appeal \u2014 Control of concentrations between undertakings \u2014 Notion of single concentration \u2014 Implementation of a concentration before it is notified and declared compatible with the \u2014 Fines imposed for the infringement of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 \u2014 Principle ne bis in idem \u2014 Set-off principle \u2014 Principles governing concurrent offences)"], "id": "7f74a7c3-e64e-4cb6-9848-63d252c3d9aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["See judgment of 28 March 1995, Evans Medical and Macfarlan Smith (C\u2011324/93, EU:C:1995:84, paragraph 20). I would point out that in that case the diamorphine was imported for medical use and that its importation was therefore lawful (judgment of 28 March 1995, Evans Medical and Macfarlan Smith, C\u2011324/93, EU:C:1995:84, paragraphs 4, 20 and 37). See the Opinion of Advocate General Bot in Josemans (C\u2011137/09, EU:C:2010:433, points 85 and 86), which reads \u2018in the light of the rules, narcotic drugs do not all come under the same category. This difference does not relate to the nature of the goods, but to their final use. Thus, it is settled case-law that narcotic drugs which have a medical or scientific application come under the internal market rules. However, that is not the case with narcotic drugs imported illegally or intended for illicit purposes\u2019. See, lastly, Blumann, C., \u2018Le champ d\u2019application du march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur\u2019, in Blumann, C. (dir.), Introduction au march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur. Libre circulation des marchandises, \u00c9ditions de l\u2019universit\u00e9 de Bruxelles, Brussels, 2015 (paragraph 70)."], "id": "9412913c-9ad2-48f5-abb9-0372eaffef35", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Were the contrary true, the situation would quite clearly conflict with the establishment of an , which \u2018implies that the conditions of entry and residence of a Union citizen in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess are the same in all the Member States\u2019. See, to that effect, judgment of 25 July 2008, Metock and Others (C\u2011127/08, EU:C:2008:449, paragraph 68)."], "id": "95d0a39c-225c-4c0f-b1f9-ddc9ff7b3445", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["promoting, in close cooperation with the Agency, regulatory authorities of other Member States and the Commission, a competitive, secure and environmentally sustainable in natural gas within the Community, and effective market opening for all customers and suppliers in the Community, and ensuring appropriate conditions for the effective and reliable operation of gas networks, taking into account long-term objectives;"], "id": "abfdcf85-aa9d-4f67-aaf8-779a3e2d7fc9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["declare that, by requiring foreign higher education institutions to offer higher education in their country of origin, pursuant to Article 76(1)(b) of the Law on higher education, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36), and, in any event, under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and Article XVII of the GATS;"], "id": "ccce4a0e-a997-43e0-8850-cdf6c1cf5153", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, the General Court held that the applicants were directly concerned by the regulation at issue. The General Court recalled that, according to case-law, that condition requires that the contested EU measure directly affect the legal situation of the applicant on the one hand, and that there must be no discretion left to the addressees of that measure who are responsible for its implementation, on the other. The latter requirement was met because the Member States, who were responsible for implementing the regulation at issue, had no discretion as regards the rate of anti-dumping duty and the imposition of that duty on the product concerned. As regards the former requirement, the Council and the Commission argued that the modification of the rate of anti-dumping duty brought about by the regulation at issue was incapable of producing legal effects vis-\u00e0-vis the applicants because, on the one hand, the applicants did not pay any anti-dumping duty, and, on the other hand, they did not have a subjective right to have a certain level of anti-dumping duties imposed on their competitors. The General Court rejected this contention. Indeed, had the EU Courts adopted such a restrictive interpretation of that requirement, any action brought by a Union producer against a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties would have to be declared automatically inadmissible; the same would apply to any action brought by a competitor of the beneficiary of aid declared compatible with the by the Commission at the end of the formal investigation procedure, as well as to any action brought by a competitor against a decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market. However, case-law has declared these types of action admissible. Given that, in the present case, the applicants had lodged the request for the partial interim review, and the anti-dumping duties imposed at the end of the partial interim review procedure were intended to offset the injury they had suffered as competing producers operating on the same market, the General Court concluded that they were directly concerned by the regulation at issue."], "id": "fd775606-627e-4360-a71f-e899008b26ed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["8 Article 37 of that act reads as follows: \u2018If Bulgaria or Romania has failed to implement commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations, causing a serious breach of the functioning of the , including any commitments in all sectoral policies which concern economic activities with cross-border effect, or an imminent risk of such breach the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years after accession, upon motivated request of a Member State or on its own initiative, take appropriate measures. Measures shall be proportional and priority shall be given to measures which least disturb the functioning of the internal market and, where appropriate, to the application of the existing sectoral safeguard mechanisms. Such safeguard measures shall not be invoked as a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. The safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into force as of the first day of accession unless they provide for a later date. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted when the relevant commitment is implemented. They may however be applied beyond the period specified in the first paragraph as long as the relevant commitments have not been fulfilled. In response to progress made by the new Member State concerned in fulfilling its commitments, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate. The Commission shall inform the Council in good time before revoking the safeguard measures, and it shall take duly into account any observations of the Council in this respect.\u2019"], "id": "a7fdc317-5d16-421f-b230-948b6591ee50", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Internal Market", "masked_sentences": ["Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96 of 5 February 1996 laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 1996 L 28, p. 11), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2082/2004 of 6 December 2004 (OJ 2004 L 360, p. 8), and repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 of 18 May 2017 supplementing Regulation No 207/2009 and repealing Commission Regulations (EC) No 2868/95 and (EC) No 216/96 (OJ 2017 L 205, p. 1)."], "id": "47a82d3d-5fad-4eec-8e5e-4b30da76b522", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "internal market", "masked_sentences": ["Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a measure introduced by a Member State to finance, for a period extending over several years and up to a maximum amount of EUR 20 million, both compensation to support farmers who have been obliged to slaughter animals affected by infectious diseases and payment of fees due to self-employed veterinary surgeons involved in remediation activities, must be subject to the preliminary-examination procedure laid down in that provision in the case where that measure is not covered by an authorisation decision of the European Commission to that effect, unless that measure fulfils the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU], or the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector."], "id": "fd4a7640-a4e9-48fd-ac60-dde9e164cd32", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["The principle of equivalence requires that national governing situations subject to EU law must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions, while the principle of effectiveness requires that such provisions must not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise of rights conferred by EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2019, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, C\u2011752/18, EU:C:2019:1114, paragraph 33)."], "id": "10841b38-aa8a-4a91-a172-af6c58da75c3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, although the Court has already held to be admissible questions referred for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of of EU law which the referring court is required to apply in order to deliver its judgment, that is not the scope of the second and third questions referred in this case. Similarly, an answer by the Court to those questions does not appear capable of providing the referring judge with an interpretation of EU law which would allow him to resolve procedural questions of national law before being able to rule on the substance of the case before him. Accordingly, those questions do not therefore concern an interpretation of EU law which meets an objective need for the determination of that case, but are of a general nature and hence inadmissible."], "id": "52064c37-e168-44bc-ac28-69c5987749f2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, it should be noted that, although the term \u2018give judgment\u2019, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, encompasses the entire procedure leading to the referring court\u2019s decision, that term must be interpreted broadly in order to prevent many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court and the latter from being unable to interpret all of EU law that the referring court is required to apply (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 June 2015, Fahnenbrock and Others, C\u2011226/13, C\u2011245/13, C\u2011247/13 and C\u2011578/13, EU:C:2015:383, paragraph 30, and of 16 June 2016, Pebros Servizi, C\u2011511/14, EU:C:2016:448, paragraph 28)."], "id": "7efc08f7-0431-4233-a40d-c896b838bcb0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, although the Court has already held to be admissible questions referred for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of of EU law which the referring court is required to apply in order to deliver its judgment (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgment of 17 February 2011, Wery\u0144ski, C\u2011283/09, EU:C:2011:85, paragraphs 41 and 42), that is not the scope of the questions raised in the present joined cases."], "id": "ae51f895-10f5-45f2-aef9-0d53632d0627", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Under established case-law, the primacy of EU law means that the national courts called upon, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, to apply provisions of EU law must be under the duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of their own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national law, including , and without requesting or awaiting the prior setting aside of that provision of national law by legislative or other constitutional means. National courts are in particular required to ensure within their jurisdiction the judicial protection flowing from Article 47 of the Charter and to guarantee the full effectiveness of that article by disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national law."], "id": "09eada65-4295-4661-9ce7-be3a9aff9680", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, in so far as EUIPO dwells on the fact that Rule 19(2)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1) requires the opponent to provide evidence of the acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection of the earlier right, within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, and that, according to Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, failure to comply with that requirement entails the rejection of the opposition as unfounded, it must be pointed out that, under Article 80 and Article 82(2)(b) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, those of Regulation No 2868/95 are indeed applicable in the present case."], "id": "4d30f436-459b-4320-ab71-2826f36cb719", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["That situation is exactly different from that in which the Court held to be admissible questions referred for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of procedural \u2018provisions\u2019 of EU law which the referring court is required to apply in order to deliver its judgment, as is pointed out in paragraph 50 of Miasto \u0141owicz. Significantly, the Court has also held that the terms \u2018give judgment\u2019, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, encompass the whole \u2018procedure leading to the judgment\u2019 of the referring court and must, therefore, be interpreted broadly in order to prevent many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court and the latter from being unable to interpret all of EU law that the referring court is required to apply (judgment of 28 February 2019, Gradbeni\u0161tvo Korana (C\u2011579/17, EU:C:2019:162, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited))."], "id": "e734a298-1fc7-4fcc-b7a2-591cfda74ca0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["It can thus be appreciated that the phrase \u2018give judgment\u2019, used by Article 267 TFEU, has been interpreted broadly, thereby seeking to prevent \u2018many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court and the latter from being unable to interpret all of EU law that the referring court is required to apply\u2019."], "id": "1f89479e-babe-4639-95df-19a5d80cf133", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the referring court points out first of all that, in accordance with the principle of effectiveness of EU law as interpreted by the case-law of the Court, national procedural rules relating to the finality of a judicial decision may not make it excessively difficult for the court before which an application for enforcement has been brought to refuse to apply unfair terms. However, under Slovenian law, in enforcement proceedings brought on the basis of a directly enforceable notarial instrument, the competent court is nevertheless faced with of that nature. More specifically, they are provisions of national law relating to the implementation of the principle of formal legality and the legal conditions for the suspension of enforcement, as laid down by the Law on enforcement and protective measures."], "id": "82e0922c-210b-4301-a9b2-1fc844ac855d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["That objective is implemented by detailed in Regulation No 1215/2012. It thus follows from Article 17(1) of that regulation that, in the cases it sets out, jurisdiction must be determined on the basis of specific rules applicable to contracts concluded between a consumer and a professional which are set out in Chapter II, Section 4 of that regulation."], "id": "e06d3f8d-e156-4dfe-976f-19952fe55880", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Having regard to the dates on which the applications for registration of the trade marks applied for were made \u2014 in the present case on 19 August 2008 for registrations No 982020 and No 982021, on 2 April 2009 for registration No 1007952 and on 8 September 2009 for registration No 1017273, which are determinative for the purposes of identifying the applicable substantive law \u2014 the present proceedings are governed, first, by the of Regulation No 207/2009 and, secondly, by the substantive provisions of Regulation No 40/94 for registrations No 982020, No 982021 and No 1007952 and by the substantive provisions of Regulation No 207/2009 for Registration No 1017273. The substantive provisions of those two relevant regulations are, in essence, identical for the purposes of the present proceedings."], "id": "14e93088-6895-4c87-a64a-03f930307435", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In its decision of 3 August 2017, the Arbitration Panel found, at the outset, that the of the 2015 Law on Public Procurement were applicable in the present instance, since, although that law did not enter into force until 1 November 2015 and, in principle, concerns only contracts entered into after that date, it applies, by virtue of the transitional provisions contained in Article 197(1) thereof, to the review of amendments to contracts made before it entered into force. The Arbitration Panel pointed out that the project carried out under the contract at issue in the main proceedings received EU funding and that, therefore, in accordance with Article 80(3) of Government Decree 4/2011, the period for a body or person to initiate a procedure of its own motion expires on 31 December 2020."], "id": "3a3061b6-d871-4315-95f5-8bf3b38bb188", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["55. According to Article 22(1) of Directive 2014/104, national measures transposing the substantive provisions of that directive are not to apply retroactively. However, that rule does not apply to national measures transposing the \u2018other\u2019 provisions of that directive. As regards the latter transposing measures, Member States are to ensure, in accordance with Article 22(2) of that directive, only that those measures are not to apply to actions for damages of which a national court was seised prior to 26 December 2014. Consequently, those provisions must be applied in proceedings brought before a national court after the date of transposition of Directive 2014/104. That logic of the applicability of the non-substantive provisions of that directive is typical, under national law, for . I infer from this that the reference to \u2018national measures \u2026 other than [substantive provisions]\u2019, for the purposes of Article 22(2) of that directive, relates to procedural provisions."], "id": "311f7eca-2570-4be6-8c47-e57094d351e3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["It will therefore be for the referring court to examine, in the light of all the other relevant circumstances prevailing in the dispute before it, whether the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg exceeded the limits of its discretion by not providing that a person supplying services which is in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings may benefit, for the purposes of his or her business, from recognition as a body devoted to social wellbeing. It is only if that Member State has exceeded those limits that it will be for the referring court itself to grant such a recognition in respect of the period at issue in the main proceedings, if necessary by disapplying the substantive or of domestic law precluding that recognition."], "id": "5bd6496a-da09-42da-a27c-0a331f0591bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to the contextual interpretation, namely the normative context in which the provision is placed, it must be noted that Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 is the first provision of Chapter VI of that directive entitled \u2018Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health\u2019. Moreover, Article 27 is itself entitled \u2018General principles\u2019, which means that such principles are developed by the provisions which follow. However, all those provisions of Chapter VI deal only with protection against expulsion (Article 28 \u2014 Protection against expulsion; Article 32 \u2014 Duration of exclusion orders, and Article 33 \u2014 Expulsion as a penalty or legal consequence), the type of diseases which may prevent entry into the territory of a Member State or justify expulsion (Article 29) and procedural safeguards against any decision taken on the basis of Article 27 of the directive (Article 30 \u2014 Notification of decisions, and Article 31 \u2014 Procedural safeguards). Most \u2014 if not all \u2014 of those expressly relate only to expulsion decisions."], "id": "4b65f85d-74fd-4cb2-a994-32db62b7fd3e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["However, the dispute, for which the opinion of this Court is sought, is the preliminary issue concerning Mr Netejoru\u2019s quality of representation, raised as an incident in the main proceedings. The fact that those proceedings concern a preliminary matter does not mean a lack of relevance and, therefore, the inadmissibility of the reference for preliminary ruling. Indeed, the Court, in assessing whether a question referred is necessary to enable a referring court to \u2018give judgment\u2019 within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, has adopted a broad interpretation of that concept. It notably encompasses \u2018the whole of the procedure leading to the judgment of the referring court, in order that the Court of Justice is able to interpret all of European Union law that the referring court is required to apply in order to give judgment\u2019. That interpretation has made it possible for procedural questions regarding the entire process of creating the judgment to be regarded as admissible, including all issues relating to the responsibility for the costs of proceedings, or taking of evidence. Moreover, in the past, the Court has shown itself to be traditionally rather generous in not examining too closely the substantive proximity of the issues raised with regard to main proceedings."], "id": "53b8ae12-816a-4503-9e50-d075680cca49", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Since the Basic Regulation and Regulation No 874/2009 contain provisions governing the admissibility of evidence submitted out of time, it must be held that Article 81, which provides that, in the absence of in Regulation No 874/2009 or in provisions adopted pursuant to that regulation, the CPVO is to apply the principles of procedural law which are generally recognised in the Member States, and which according to the applicant, in the present case required the CPVO to refer to those principles, is not applicable in the present case."], "id": "6e787d85-8dd8-4226-b3ef-fd48a5e502e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["The European Court of Human Rights has held that the positive obligations flowing from Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, whose corresponding safeguards are set out in Articles 4 and 7 of the Charter, require, in particular, the adoption of substantive and as well as practical measures enabling effective action to combat crimes against the person through effective investigation and prosecution, that obligation being all the more important when a child\u2019s physical and moral well-being is at risk. However, the measures to be taken by the competent authorities must fully respect due process and the other safeguards limiting the scope of criminal investigation powers, as well as other freedoms and rights. In particular, according to that court, a legal framework should be established enabling a balance to be struck between the various interests and rights to be protected (ECtHR, 28 October 1998, Osman v. United Kingdom, CE:ECHR:1998:1028JUD002345294, \u00a7\u00a7 115 and 116; 4 March 2004, M.C. v. Bulgaria, CE:ECHR:2003:1204JUD003927298, \u00a7 151; 24 June 2004, Von Hannover v. Germany, CE:ECHR:2004:0624JUD005932000, \u00a7\u00a7 57 and 58; and 2 December 2008, K.U. v. Finland, CE:ECHR:2008:1202JUD000287202, \u00a7\u00a7 46, 48 and 49)."], "id": "89609fed-b133-47d2-9bba-5c08396f9643", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Against that background, the referring court is uncertain, in essence, whether Articles 15 and 31 of Directive 2004/38, and the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the host Member State, when examining the legality of a decision refusing the right of residence for more than three months of a Union citizen who is seeking employment, must have regard to any change of circumstances in the jobseeker\u2019s situation occurring subsequent to the decision of the competent authorities restricting that person\u2019s right of residence, disapplying, if necessary, the national if that change of circumstances shows that the jobseeker did enjoy such a right of residence."], "id": "d069a3e1-1cf9-473f-95da-a905dd3009e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In view of: (i) the fact that, in the preliminary question, the referring court raises the difficulty that Romanian law does not recognise the concept of a legal separation and, therefore, does not contain applicable to such procedures; (ii) the approach of the Romanian courts mentioned in point 23 of the present Opinion; and (iii) providing a complete and useful answer to the referring court, I consider it necessary for the Court to also provide guidance on the consequences of the proposed answer to the preliminary question."], "id": "9734c164-faf7-472d-a302-362ff736fcd0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In the cases at hand, the President of the PPA initiated ex officio reviews of the modifications of the two public contracts at issue. The modifications occurred in 2009 and 2010 respectively. At the time of the modifications, the applicable national legislation was the 2003 Law on Public Procurement. However, the transitional provisions of the 2015 Law on Public Procurement (in Article 197) have been interpreted in such a way that the of that law apply to modifications of public contracts that occurred before that law entered into force."], "id": "f3af278a-ffd8-4191-9b1c-a4aa9c0a6918", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["The facts at issue in these proceedings occurred prior to the entry into force of the Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions (Directive 2014/104/EU ) and the proceedings at first instance also were initiated by the Province of Upper Austria before the entry into force of Directive 2014/104. Thus, Directive 2014/104 does not apply in the present proceedings ratione temporis and there is no need to clarify if any relevant provisions of Austrian law are of a substantive or procedural nature. Indeed, according to Article 22 of Directive 2014/104, substantive measures implementing the Directive are subject to a general prohibition on retroactive effect, whereas all other national implementing provisions \u2013 namely \u2013 apply to facts that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Directive, but only in the context of proceedings initiated after the entry into force of the Directive."], "id": "b6d12df1-13fb-4a70-8bea-991a03535689", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["If the proposition regarding the application of Article 83 was accepted, which was appropriate in these proceedings once the application of Article 80 of Regulation No 207/2009 had been ruled out, it was not [necessary] to establish the definition of the principle that unlawful acts may be revoked in general or its treatment in case-law but rather to interpret Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, in accordance with which, in the absence of in that regulation, \u2018the Office shall take into account the principles of procedural law generally recognised in the Member States\u2019."], "id": "1174ae97-5248-48e7-b68a-1c32e9adda14", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["The Court stated first, that the disputes in the main proceedings were not substantively connected to EU law, in particular to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU to which the questions referred related. The referring courts were not therefore required to apply that law, or that provision, in order to determine the substance of the disputes before them. It stated, secondly, that the questions referred did not concern the interpretation of of EU law which the referring courts were required to apply in order to deliver judgment. Thirdly, an answer by the Court to the questions referred was incapable of providing the referring courts with an interpretation of EU law that would allow them to resolve procedural questions of national law before being able to rule on the substance of the disputes before them. Judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto \u0141owicz and Prokurator Generalny (C\u2011558/18 and C\u2011563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraphs 49 to 53)."], "id": "1090fcc1-021d-4ade-99b0-6f59664ed3c8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["However, it does not follow from the case-law cited in paragraphs 64 and 65 above that the seller or supplier is also required to inform the consumer, before a contract is concluded, of the general of domestic law of its own State of residence, such as those relating to the allocation of the burden of proof, or the relevant case-law."], "id": "e5b26d49-8461-4527-a49d-4b7f2df7d771", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In paragraphs 70 and 71 of the first of those judgments, the Court held that the inclusion, within the legal system of the issuing Member State, of procedural rules according to which the proportionality of the decision of the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office to issue a European arrest warrant may be subject, before or after the actual surrender of the requested person, to judicial review before or almost at the same time as the European arrest warrant is issued and, in any event, after it has been issued, meets the requirement of effective judicial protection. In the case that gave rise to that judgment, as is clear from paragraphs 68 and 69 thereof, that finding was based on the existence of a set of guaranteeing the involvement of a court as soon as the national arrest warrant was issued against the requested person and, therefore, before he was surrendered."], "id": "74a120c7-2e65-4a26-a5c5-da22dfcc39c3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["21 As regards the procedure before the Opposition Division, the of Regulation No 2868/95 on opposition proceedings, namely Rules 15 to 20, are applicable to the present case, in accordance with a combined reading of the transitional provisions laid down in Article 81(2)(a) and (b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 of 18 May 2017 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 2868/95 and (EC) No 216/96 (OJ 2017 L 205, p. 1) and in Article 82(2)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation 2017/1001 and repealing Delegated Regulation 2017/1430 (OJ 2018 L 104, p. 1)."], "id": "175c6343-d736-4b61-8447-e71af58d920e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Under those circumstances, the question now arises as to whether Articles 15 and 31 of Directive 2004/38, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the national courts must have regard to changes of circumstances occurring after the adoption of the decisions restricting the rights to move and reside freely, disapplying, if necessary, the national if such changes show that the jobseeker did enjoy such a right of residence."], "id": "e0b63ece-6f17-46a5-ae16-06d12df3d3e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Nor is this conclusion called into question by the case-law referred to by the applicant in support of its argument that the Board of Appeal should have admitted the evidence submitted late, since, according to that case-law, there is no reason to preclude additional evidence which merely supplements other evidence submitted within the time limit imposed from being taken into account, where the initial evidence was not irrelevant but has been challenged as insufficient by the other party (judgment of 28 March 2012, Rehbein v OHIM \u2014 Dias Martinho (OUTBURST), T\u2011214/08, EU:T:2012:161, paragraph 53). This case-law concerns the application of concerning EU trade marks relating to proof of use, according to which, if the opposing party fails to provide proof of use of the trade mark within the prescribed time limits, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) must reject the opposition. These provisions have no equivalent in the field of Community plant variety rights. Therefore, that case-law cannot be applied by analogy to the present case."], "id": "6195724d-ec6b-4287-b1ab-77ac34fd41d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, the questions referred bear no relation to the procedures and the subject matter of the disputes in the main proceedings and are general and hypothetical in nature, in that the referring courts are not called upon to apply, in those disputes, either the national provisions relating to the disciplinary regime for judges or the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU. The hypothetical nature of the questions also stems from the fact that the opening of disciplinary proceedings following the decisions which the referring courts will deliver in the main proceedings appears, at this stage, to be a mere possibility, so that the questions do not relate to the disputes in the main proceedings, but to possible future disputes which might arise between the judges concerned and the national disciplinary authorities. An answer to those questions will not affect the obligation of the referring courts to rule on the cases in the main proceedings on the basis of the applicable substantive and of national law, nor will it alter the scope of that obligation. It is not therefore necessary for the resolution of those cases."], "id": "dd25c194-ec85-4ca1-aa85-d785da96b8cb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Articles 15 and 31 of Directive 2004/38, and the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the host Member State, when examining the legality of a decision refusing the right of residence for more than three months of a Union citizen who is seeking employment, must have regard to any change of circumstances in the jobseeker\u2019s situation occurring subsequent to the decision by the competent authorities restricting that person\u2019s right of residence, disapplying, if necessary, the national if that change of circumstances shows that the jobseeker did enjoy such right of residence."], "id": "a24eff2c-2374-4e1b-a3d1-f4bc4df64257", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Unlike the cases which gave rise to the judgments cited in paragraphs 64 and 65 above, the case in the main proceedings does not concern the obligation on the part of the seller or supplier to inform the consumer of the existence of mandatory provisions of international private law. Nor does it concern the obligation of the seller or supplier to inform the consumer of mandatory provisions under which the amount to be repaid by the consumer may vary and which therefore have a direct effect on the economic consequences for the consumer arising from the contract. Instead, the issue in the main proceedings is the consumer information concerning the existence of general relating to the allocation of the burden of proof and their interpretation in case-law on the date the contract was concluded."], "id": "12d78062-15bc-4fcf-8a79-5dc61718dc15", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Do the Bulgarian governing the special procedure for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures provided for in Article 427 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which a court is not empowered to refer the proceedings back to the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office with the instruction to rectify the procedural errors committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure, but can either grant the application for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures or reject it, constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 and Article 8 of Directive 2012/13 read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, which confers on the person concerned the right to challenge before a court any infringements of their rights which may have been committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure?"], "id": "6f4b93a3-e338-448b-92cb-dc706056c45e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be observed that, given the date on which the application for registration was filed, namely 29 September 2004, which is decisive for the purpose of identifying the applicable substantive law, the facts of the case are governed by the substantive provisions of Regulation No 40/94 (see, to that effect, order of 5 October 2004, Alcon v OHIM, C\u2011192/03 P, EU:C:2004:587, paragraphs 39 and 40, and judgment of 29 January 2020, Sky and Others, C\u2011371/18, EU:C:2020:45, paragraph 49). Furthermore, since, in accordance with settled case-law, procedural rules are generally held to apply on the date on which they enter into force (see judgment of 11 December 2012, Commission v Spain, C\u2011610/10, EU:C:2012:781, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited), the dispute is governed by the of Regulations No 207/2009 and 2017/1001."], "id": "e9845b76-f766-4a02-b3de-bb5394b57129", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In its decision of 18 August 2017, the Arbitration Panel found, at the outset, that the of the 2015 Law on Public Procurement were applicable in the present instance, since, although that law did not enter into force until 1 November 2015 and, in principle, concerns only contracts concluded after that date, it applies, by virtue of the transitional provisions contained in Article 197(1) thereof, to the review of amendments to contracts made before the date on which it entered into force."], "id": "ca6de5ff-eaa6-4ded-9d36-922f6f686dd8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["That interpretation is also supported by the objective pursued by Article 80(1). That provision seeks to impose on EUIPO the obligation to revoke decisions containing an obvious procedural error with the aim of guaranteeing good administration and procedural efficiency. In the light of that objective, there is no reason to exclude from the scope of Article 80(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 obvious errors committed by EUIPO relating to the infringement of the obligation to state reasons imposed on it under Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, which falls under the of that regulation."], "id": "0d8a1f70-b1fd-4035-9034-18875643aef3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["According to the Court, \u2018in the absence of provisions in [the SEA Directive] on the consequences of infringing the which it lays down, it is for the Member States to take, within the sphere of their competence, all the general or particular measures necessary to ensure that all \u201cplans\u201d or \u201cprogrammes\u201d likely to have \u201csignificant environmental effects\u201d within the meaning of Directive 2001/42 are subject to an environmental assessment prior to their adoption in accordance with the procedural requirements and the criteria laid down by that directive\u2019."], "id": "83b43c3e-c9f0-4700-8503-7552350df72a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["131. It is for the national court to determine whether the national applicable in the framework of the recovery action lodged by the State allow for such full rights of defence for the judge concerned. If that were not the case, it is for the referring court to interpret the national procedural provisions in conformity with the requirements of the rights of the defence of Article 47 of the Charter, in order to give the judge, in the framework of either the proceedings between the injured party and the State or certainly at latest in the proceedings between the State and the judge concerned, the possibility to present his or her position in full with regard to all the elements alleged. (c) Conclusion and a caveat"], "id": "498ffc42-4ef5-44bb-b239-90d89026fe90", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In the absence of provisions in that directive on the consequences of infringing the which it lays down, it is for the Member States to take, within the sphere of their competence, all the general or particular measures necessary to ensure that all \u2018plans\u2019 or \u2018programmes\u2019 that are likely to have \u2018significant environmental effects\u2019, within the meaning of that directive, are subject to an environmental assessment, in accordance with the procedural requirements and the criteria laid down by that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 July 2016, Association France Nature Environnement, C\u2011379/15, EU:C:2016:603, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "79a42f25-5468-484f-a742-bb832641f024", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["The Arbitration Panel argues that the present cases are not about the (re)opening of time limits that have already lapsed under the previous in force at the time of the modifications, but about allowing the exercise, in the context of administrative review, of new monitoring competences laid down in Article 83 of Directive 2014/24 and Article 99 of Directive 2014/25. The predecessor of the Public Procurement Authority did not have such a review competence. Consequently, the 2015 Law on Public Procurement does not allow for the reopening of an expired deadline, but it does allow for the exercise of an entirely new competence. The President of the PPA and the Hungarian Government largely share that view, although with some minor variations."], "id": "dfc706e2-2322-4b8c-b5b3-9e44707d4779", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, although the Court has already held admissible questions referred for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of of EU law which the referring court concerned is required to apply in order to deliver its judgment (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 February 2011, Wery\u0144ski, C\u2011283/09, EU:C:2011:85, paragraphs 41 and 42), that is not the scope of the second and third questions raised in the present case (see, by analogy, judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto \u0141owicz and Prokurator Generalny, C\u2011558/18 and C\u2011563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraph 50)."], "id": "969e64fb-c721-45d7-bf81-8d7675592eb7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from the order for reference that the law applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings is, in accordance with Article 8(a) of that regulation, Italian law and that, under that law, a divorce may be applied for only if, in particular, a legal separation has previously been established or declared by a court, whereas the law of the forum, namely Romanian law, neither lays down that condition nor contains relating to legal separation."], "id": "5b352697-3c2f-4290-9e07-7a4ecb63a787", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["First, the referring court has explained the relevance of the questions referred for the purposes of the main proceedings. According to the order for reference, the national court must rule as a preliminary matter, pursuant to national , on the procedural objections that may render the hearing of evidence or the examination of substance redundant. At this stage, the main proceedings are halted precisely because of that procedural objection, based on the fact that Mr Netejoru, who, in his capacity as Chief Inspector, pursuant to Emergency Ordinance No 77/2018, signed the defence as representative of the Judicial Inspection, lacked the relevant representation powers."], "id": "7c8ab14b-4c79-4f36-b7c7-cd70c200121d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Contrary, once again, to the claims of the Spanish Government, it seems plain to me that a suspension of that nature cannot affect the applicant in the main proceedings as a Member of the European Parliament. Admittedly, Members of the European Parliament are elected in the Member States, in accordance with the arrangements established by their national law, harmonised in certain respects by the 1976 Act. It is for the purposes of that election that the Treaty allocates seats in the Parliament among the Member States on a \u2018degressively proportional\u2019 basis (Article 14(2), third paragraph, TEU). That is also why, in addition to purely , the Member States apply their own rules as regards, in particular, eligibility. They are also authorised to apply their own rules on incompatibility to Members of the European Parliament elected in their respective territories, in addition to the list of incompatible offices in Article 7 of the 1976 Act. It also makes sense that the national law of the Member States governs monitoring of the validity of elections."], "id": "508bae44-5e29-4f59-b9ea-72ea015bc1cf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["The terms \u2018give judgment\u2019, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, encompass the whole procedure leading to the referring court\u2019s judgment and must, therefore, be interpreted broadly in order to prevent many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court and the latter from being unable to interpret all of EU law that the referring court is required to apply (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 June 2016, Pebros Servizi, C\u2011511/14, EU:C:2016:448, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "a2792aca-1e7b-4a38-9e5c-d8b9db4e6002", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["31. First, as regards the preventive measures, it points out that the Residence Directive contains no provision concerning measures which may be taken in respect of Union citizens or members of their families in order to avoid a risk of absconding where they have been the subject of an expulsion decision, and that, in the absence of harmonisation of EU law, these may be adopted by the national legislature which must, in principle, be free to do so by drawing inspiration from similar provisions applicable in national law to illegally staying third-country nationals, under the Return Directive. In that regard, the referring court states that the Court of Justice has already held, in the judgment in Petrea, (10) that the Member States may draw inspiration from the provisions of the Return Directive to designate competent authorities and to define the procedure applicable to the adoption of a decision ordering the return of a Union citizen, if that is not precluded by any provision of EU law. The referring court queries whether that case-law applies to the present case, since it considers, in essence, that the preventive measures, which necessarily have an effect on the very exercise of the right to free movement and residence, cannot be classified as ."], "id": "df83ddc9-112b-4fd4-84b6-884ea2303500", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Admittedly, the referring court notes, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court in the judgment of 14 September 2017, Petrea (C\u2011184/16, EU:C:2017:684), that EU law does not preclude a decision to expel a Union citizen from being adopted by the same authorities and according to the same procedure as a decision to return an illegally staying third-country national where the measures transposing Directive 2004/38 into national law are more favourable to that Union citizen. However, the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings are not intended to designate the authority competent to take an expulsion decision in respect of Union citizens and their family members and do not cover , but concern restrictions on the fundamental rights of Union citizens and their family members that are not provided for by Directive 2004/38."], "id": "006f9108-4be2-4701-97a4-d19496756268", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["15 The Gesetz zur Durchf\u00fchrung der gemeinsamen Marktorganisationen und der Direktzahlungen (Marktorganisationsgesetz) (Law implementing the common organisation of markets and direct payments) of 7 November 2017 (BGBl. 2017 I, p. 3746), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings in Case C\u2011415/20 (\u2018the Law implementing the common organisation of markets and direct payments\u2019), provides, in Paragraph 6 thereof, entitled \u2018Benefits\u2019: \u20181. The Bundesministerium f\u00fcr Ern\u00e4hrung und Landwirtschaft [(Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Germany)] is empowered to adopt \u2026 by means of regulations not subject to approval by the Bundesrat [(Federal Council, Germany)], in so far as this is necessary for the implementation of (1) provisions and acts \u2026 relating to products which are the subject of a common organisation of the market \u2026 in respect of (a) export refunds, \u2026 and provisions specifying the conditions and the amount of those benefits, in so far as they are determined, determinable or circumscribed \u2026 \u2026\u2019"], "id": "056a7fa9-122a-4248-9938-01ba3f62f52e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["17 It must be noted, at the outset, that, in view of the date on which the application for protection in the European Union of the international registration of the contested mark was filed, namely 16 October 2016, which is decisive for the purpose of identifying the applicable substantive law, the facts of the case are governed by the substantive provisions of Regulation No 207/2009 (see, to that effect, judgments of 8 May 2014, Bimbo v OHIM, C\u2011591/12 P, EU:C:2014:305, paragraph 12, and of 18 June 2020, Primart v EUIPO, C\u2011702/18 P, EU:C:2020:489, paragraph 2 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, in so far as, according to settled case-law, procedural rules are generally held to apply on the date on which they enter into force (see judgment of 11 December 2012, Commission v Spain, C\u2011610/10, EU:C:2012:781, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited), the present dispute is governed by the of Regulation 2017/1001."], "id": "f7575da2-7ada-401e-aae6-18fdd4fb08ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Where the facts as finally ascertained justify the extension of measures, this shall be done by the Commission acting in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 15(3). 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 of this Regulation concerning the initiation and the conduct of investigations shall apply pursuant to this Article."], "id": "ad636aac-f81d-4388-afd8-b0073ff60018", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Do the Bulgarian governing the special procedure for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures provided for in Article 427 et seq. of the NPK (Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks) (Code of Civil Procedure, Bulgaria), under which the court is not empowered to refer the proceedings back to the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office with the instruction to rectify the procedural errors committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure, but can either grant the application for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures or reject it, constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 and Article 8 of Directive 2012/13 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which confers on persons the right to challenge before a court any infringements of their rights which may have been committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure?"], "id": "3f2d9a58-ee13-4510-9a74-6b77fc754aec", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["22 Lastly, since the appeal before the Board of Appeal was filed on 30 April 2018, first, the relevant are those laid down in Regulation 2017/1001, which is applicable from 1 October 2017. Second, it was appropriate to apply, for a limited period up to 13 May 2018, the procedural provisions listed under Title V of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430, given that, in accordance with Article 81(2)(j) of that regulation, those provisions were applicable to appeals brought before the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO after 1 October 2017. That regulation was subsequently repealed on 13 May 2018 by Delegated Regulation 2018/625, of which, in particular, Article 82(2)(j), concerning the application of the rules applicable to proceedings before the Board of Appeal, must be emphasised."], "id": "27d9c389-9d7b-4624-976b-bcfd082ace56", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["70. Beyond the material criteria mentioned above, I recall, moreover, that Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code is also framed by aimed, in particular, at ensuring \u2013 in the form of monitoring carried out by the Commission \u2013 that the material criteria are satisfied whenever a Member State plans to reintroduce (or prolong or renew) border control at its borders. (47)"], "id": "e7b45482-ee33-453f-8c84-e0cc19a5bba2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["Second, although the Court has already held to be admissible questions referred for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of of EU law which the referring court is required to apply in order to deliver its judgment (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgment of 17 February 2011, Wery\u0144ski, C\u2011283/09, EU:C:2011:85, paragraphs 41 and 42), that is not the scope of the questions raised in the present case (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto \u0141owicz and Prokurator Generalny, C\u2011558/18 and C\u2011563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraph 50)."], "id": "b87e38fd-6d28-4306-8845-d3e4b4c6ce9e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["In its defence, the Republic of Poland contends, inter alia, that Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter are not applicable to disciplinary cases concerning national judges in the absence of a situation where EU law is being implemented for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter. In particular, it argues that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU does not constitute the source of fundamental rights of the defence or the right to be heard within a reasonable time. That Member State considers that the disciplinary cases conducted on the basis of the challenged by the Commission are of a purely internal nature and that, in defining those procedures, the Polish authorities have not regulated fields covered by Union law for the purposes of that provision, read in conjunction with Article 5 TEU and Articles 3 and 4 TFEU."], "id": "b8d9d621-61e6-4e79-a9c4-ca8d0dd683b4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["It is against the backdrop of those different positive obligations that the Court must strike a balance between the various interests and rights at issue. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the positive obligations flowing from Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whose corresponding safeguards are set out in Articles 4 and 7 of the Charter, require, in particular, the adoption of substantive and as well as practical measures enabling effective action to combat crimes against the person through effective investigation and prosecution, that obligation being all the more important when a child\u2019s physical and moral well-being is at risk. However, the measures to be taken by the competent authorities must fully respect due process and the other safeguards limiting the scope of criminal investigation powers, as well as other freedoms and rights. In particular, according to that court, a legal framework should be established enabling a balance to be struck between the various interests and rights to be protected (judgment of 6 October 2020, La Quadrature du Net and Others, C\u2011511/18, C\u2011512/18 and C\u2011520/18, EU:C:2020:791, paragraphs 127 and 128 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "284ba669-59eb-4173-9fe3-3f002bc68fe9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["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 of this Regulation with regard to initiations and the conduct of investigations shall apply pursuant to this Article."], "id": "312648fa-8ed6-40ed-9ccb-997edac69e22", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["According to settled case-law, the admissibility of a request for a preliminary ruling is subject to the referring court being \u2018called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature\u2019. This means that a reference received from a national court that, exceptionally, intervenes in a procedure of an administrative nature is not admissible. By contrast, that does not mean that the decision which the referring court is to take, in the main proceedings, on the specific issue raised in the context of its questions referred must relate to the closure of the procedure, let alone take the form of a judgment. The Court has consistently stated that questions are admissible when they concern issues of procedure relating to \u2018the whole procedure leading to the referring court\u2019s judgment\u2019. The requirement in question must in fact be \u2018interpreted broadly in order to prevent many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court and the latter from being unable to interpret all of EU law that the referring court is required to apply\u2019."], "id": "ebf1d4f1-ae90-4031-ae96-53213c1f34a2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedural provisions", "masked_sentences": ["I would recall that, according to the Court, \u2018in the absence of provisions in [Directive 2001/42] on the consequences of infringing the which it lays down, it is for the Member States to take, within the sphere of their competence, all the general or particular measures necessary to ensure that all \u201cplans\u201d or \u201cprogrammes\u201d likely to have \u201csignificant environmental effects\u201d within the meaning of Directive 2001/42 are subject to an environmental assessment prior to their adoption in accordance with the procedural requirements and the criteria laid down by that directive\u2019."], "id": "5a0a665e-ea6c-48c0-a59e-f6b2a54eadf7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Next, it must be borne in mind that it follows from the examination of the second and third parts of the first ground of appeal that the General Court did not err in law in taking the view that the Commission had been right to find that there is no on the market for the management and operation of the national railway infrastructure."], "id": "3ef50d05-094f-43d3-bd55-8b93031c4533", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["While, in accordance with its usual meaning in everyday language, the concept of \u2018bad faith\u2019 presupposes the presence of a dishonest state of mind or intention, that concept must also be understood in the context of trade mark law, which is that of the course of trade. In that regard, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), Regulation No 207/2009 and Regulation 2017/1001, which were adopted successively, have the same objective, namely the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The rules on the EU trade mark are aimed, in particular, at contributing to the system of undistorted in the European Union, in which each undertaking must, in order to attract and retain customers through the quality of its goods or services, be able to have registered as trade marks signs which enable the consumer, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish those goods or services from others which have a different origin (see judgment of 12 September 2019, Koton Ma\u011fazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO, C\u2011104/18 P, EU:C:2019:724, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 29 January 2020, Sky and Others, C\u2011371/18, EU:C:2020:45, paragraph 74)."], "id": "80301693-130e-49fd-8e80-a17bee572f14", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, the principle of fiscal neutrality precludes economic operators actually carrying on the same activities from being treated differently as far as the levying of VAT is concerned in order to avoid distortions of . If, however, the two taxable persons ultimately carry out only exempt transactions in the same tax period, neither has a right to deduct. A right to deduct existing solely on the basis of one\u2019s undertaking\u2019s former intention to carry out taxable transactions would afford it a competitive advantage. In addition to the problem of an adequate review of that intention, such an outcome would also run counter to the approach taken by the Court, according to which regard should be had, in assessing a transaction to be taxed, to the objective character of the transaction and not to subjective intentions."], "id": "fc1b05bb-51c4-4e6b-bf1c-775ece4ba365", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 9, 10, 13 and 142 of the GDPR state: \u2018(9) The objectives and principles of Directive [95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31)] remain sound, but it has not prevented fragmentation in the implementation of data protection across the Union, legal uncertainty or a widespread public perception that there are significant risks to the protection of natural persons, in particular with regard to online activity. Differences in the level of protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, with regard to the processing of personal data in the Member States may prevent the free flow of personal data throughout the Union. Those differences may therefore constitute an obstacle to the pursuit of economic activities at the level of the Union, distort and impede authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities under Union law. Such a difference in levels of protection is due to the existence of differences in the implementation and application of Directive [95/46]. (10) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of natural persons and to remove the obstacles to flows of personal data within the Union, the level of protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of such data should be equivalent in all Member States. Consistent and homogenous application of the rules for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data should be ensured throughout the Union. \u2026 \u2026 (13) In order to ensure a consistent level of protection for natural persons throughout the Union and to prevent divergences hampering the free movement of personal data within the internal market, a Regulation is necessary to provide legal certainty and transparency for economic operators, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and to provide natural persons in all Member States with the same level of legally enforceable rights and obligations and responsibilities for controllers and processors, to ensure consistent monitoring of the processing of personal data, and equivalent sanctions in all Member States as well as effective cooperation between the supervisory authorities of different Member States. \u2026 \u2026 (142) Where a data subject considers that his or her rights under this Regulation are infringed, he or she should have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which is constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest and is active in the field of the protection of personal data to lodge a complaint on his or her behalf with a supervisory authority, exercise the right to a judicial remedy on behalf of data subjects or, if provided for in Member State law, exercise the right to receive compensation on behalf of data subjects. A Member State may provide for such a body, organisation or association to have the right to lodge a complaint in that Member State, independently of a data subject\u2019s mandate, and the right to an effective judicial remedy where it has reasons to consider that the rights of a data subject have been infringed as a result of the processing of personal data which infringes this Regulation. That body, organisation or association may not be allowed to claim compensation on a data subject\u2019s behalf independently of the data subject\u2019s mandate.\u2019"], "id": "066bcb3e-cf67-43f0-bcc8-faedbb49f489", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["158. First of all, I recall that Directive 2008/7 provides for complete harmonisation of the cases in which the Member States may levy indirect taxes on the raising of capital (77) in order to eliminate, as far as possible, factors which may distort conditions of or hinder the free movement of capital, and thus to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market. (78)"], "id": "21df0948-c5ee-4cd1-8046-77ac65330ea2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["10 In that respect, the appellant relies on the judgment of the Court of 29 January 2020, Sky and Others (C\u2011371/18, EU:C:2020:45), which makes reference to Sky\u2019s intention, by means of the Sky marks, to block and monopolise the use of the word \u2018sky\u2019 and not to use it in good faith and in accordance with the rules on fair . Therefore, it submits that Sky appears to wish to prevent third parties from registering other marks containing the word \u2018sky\u2019, even if it is registered with other combinations of words and in a stylised manner accompanied by other figurative elements."], "id": "95988a38-aaef-4c97-bb8f-eec2aa258dab", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the fifth place, the General Court examined and then rejected, in paragraphs 186 to 195 of the judgment under appeal, the fifth plea, seeking to call into question the decision at issue in so far as it infringed the appellants\u2019 right to avoid self-incrimination, by requiring them to respond to questions going beyond the scope of the supply of information that is factual in nature or to demonstrate that they had complied with EU rules. In that regard, the General Court noted, in particular, that (i) the information requested was of a purely factual nature, (ii) that information concerned data to which only the appellants could have access and, therefore, the appellants were required to provide that information even if it might be used to establish the existence of anticompetitive conduct and (iii) the appellants had failed to establish that the fact that, in order to respond to the questions put to them, they had to marshal the requested factual data in a document intended to facilitate the Commission\u2019s understanding thereof was capable of constituting an infringement of that right in their regard."], "id": "bb8455fa-f9a4-40da-bd11-37dc3971af70", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from paragraph 23 of the judgment of 29 September 1998, Canon (C\u201139/97, EU:C:1998:442), that, in assessing the similarity of the goods or services at issue, all the relevant factors should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in with each other or are complementary (\u2018the Canon criteria\u2019). The expression \u2018inter alia\u2019 shows that the enumeration of those factors is purely indicative and that there may be other relevant factors in addition to or instead of them, as is the case here. Similarity between goods and services does not depend on any specific number of criteria that might be determined in advance and applied in all cases."], "id": "228e8dd7-350b-4db5-93e6-37da89ed2aaa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["133. Second, such evidence may provide useful indications regarding the nature of the conduct in question and, consequently, its propensity to restrict . For example, those indications could consist of evidence that the dominant undertaking clearly expected, on the basis of its analysis or its knowledge of the market, that its conduct would have an anticompetitive effect, indications such as those being relevant given the dominant undertaking\u2019s expert knowledge of the structure of the market on which it operates. Accordingly, if such an undertaking adopts a strategy with a view to excluding its competitors from the market or marginalising them, where there is evidence in support of that fact, it may logically be deduced that such conduct is capable of producing such effects."], "id": "d62585c8-74c6-43da-b9a4-ae0959ac4648", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In paragraphs 38 to 42 of the order under appeal, the General Court found that the decision relating to the 2016 internal was not based on the terms of the employment contract between SC and Eulex Kosovo, but was adopted by the selection board of the 2016 internal competition in the context of the scheme to reduce staff under the OPLAN and the Deployment Plan, and stemmed from an administrative decision to hold that competition. It followed that the decision relating to the 2016 internal competition was separable from the contract."], "id": "17d582fa-4598-439b-b421-1d0a40286fca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the fee for the rights of use for radio frequencies which Member States may introduce must be objectively justified, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate in relation to its intended purpose and take into account, inter alia, the objectives which are the promotion of and efficient use of radio frequencies (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 March 2013, Belgacom and Others, C\u2011375/11, EU:C:2013:185, paragraph 46)."], "id": "27e9f7d2-2369-4c1e-a581-dfcf581d34f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["(State aid \u2014 Aviation sector \u2014 Aid granted by Italy in favour of Sardinian airports \u2014 Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market \u2014 Imputability to the State \u2014 Beneficiaries \u2014 Advantage for co-contracting airlines \u2014 Market economy operator principle \u2014 Effect on trade between Member States \u2014 Adverse effect on \u2014 Recovery \u2014 Legitimate expectations \u2014 Obligation to state reasons)"], "id": "5be62cfc-42e2-4063-b698-9b7c65b0896d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Ineffectiveness is the most effective way to restore and to create new business opportunities for those economic operators which have been deprived illegally of their opportunity to compete. Direct awards within the meaning of this Directive should include all contract awards made without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC. This corresponds to a procedure without prior call for competition within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1)]."], "id": "839e79ec-7a01-47fd-a9d7-9484e031052e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In any event, as the Advocate General indicated in essence in points 70 to 72 of his Opinion, since the concept of \u2018contracting authority\u2019 is closely linked to that of \u2018central purchasing body\u2019, as expounded in paragraphs 51 to 58 of this judgment, central purchasing bodies cannot be regarded as offering services on a market open to by private undertakings."], "id": "c47cc85e-4bcb-46b0-918b-6ea0402d8ac4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the context of the complaints relating to the \u2018criterion relating to the maximisation of the total proceeds for all assets\u2019, the appellant submits, first, that the General Court\u2019s analysis is vitiated by an error of law because, given that the aid in question was used to set up a conglomerate of business units, it was necessary to require separate offers for each of the business units making up the N\u00fcrburgring assets. This was the only way of eliminating the distortion of caused by the payment of the aid measures. The appellant further contends that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons on this point."], "id": "f82aba35-f7c6-4ebf-9683-24c7bfc85630", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["As is apparent from the case-law cited above concerning the manner of determining whether an agreement has an anticompetitive object, the examination to be conducted for that purpose necessarily involves an analysis of contextual elements of the agreement in question. Indeed, as has repeatedly been stated, the object of an agreement must be assessed not in the abstract but in the circumstances of the individual case, having regard to all relevant factors. However, any alleged positive benefits or effects of an agreement are undeniably contextual elements which must be assessed when examining whether the object of that agreement is the restriction of ."], "id": "554a8a70-38f0-4226-823f-501465138693", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, as regards the Commission\u2019s decision to continue the examination of the copy-images of the hard drives of the computers in question at its premises in Brussels, it must be noted that it is indeed apparent from both the wording and the scheme of Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 that an inspection must begin and, in principle, continue, as stated in Article 20(1) of that regulation, in the premises \u2018of undertakings and associations of undertakings\u2019, and that is why, first, Article 20(2)(a) of that regulation authorises the Commission to \u2018enter any premises, land and means of transport\u2019 of those undertakings and associations of undertakings, and, second, Article 20(3) of that regulation requires the Commission, in good time before the inspection, to give notice to the authority of the Member State \u2018in whose territory the inspection is to be conducted\u2019. That is also the reason why, in the present case, the inspection decision required Prysmian to submit to an inspection \u2018in all [its] premises\u2019 and those of its subsidiaries."], "id": "a73f989b-5413-4cbd-b8b0-73bcd73db691", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Lastly, a broad interpretation of the obligation to define the maximum estimated value or quantity covered by the framework agreement could also, first, render redundant the rule laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) of Directive 2014/24, under which contracts based on a framework agreement may under no circumstances entail substantial modifications to the terms laid down in that framework agreement, and, second, constitute improper use or use intended to prevent, restrict or distort , as referred to in recital 61 of the directive."], "id": "1140fdac-2ed7-4dd3-935e-032866fca3af", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["However, in the absence of any clarifications from the referring court regarding the date on which the contracting authority chose the type of procedure it intended to follow and definitively decided whether or not there was an obligation to conduct a prior call for for the award of the public contract in question, it cannot be determined whether the provisions of Directive 2014/24 are inapplicable on the ground that the period for transposition of that directive expired after that date (see, to that effect, judgments of 27 October 2016, H\u00f6rmann Reisen, C\u2011292/15, EU:C:2016:817, paragraphs 31 and 32, and of 28 February 2018, MA.T.I. SUD and Duemme SGR, C\u2011523/16 and C\u2011536/16, EU:C:2018:122, paragraph 36), it being noted that the content of Articles 2 and 46 of Directive 2004/18 was reproduced in Directive 2014/24."], "id": "8abcbd48-cdbb-4d3a-b2db-2b59de2368b8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["I should also point out that whereas Article 20, as an exception to the general regime for public procurement procedures under Directive 2014/24, should be given a strict interpretation, this principle of interpretation, in my view, would logically apply to the size of the carve-out from ordinary procurement procedures in terms of the part of the market covered (not at issue in the present case and not subject, in any event, to any explicit limitations in Directive 2014/24 to which a strict or narrow interpretation of the carve-out could apply) and to the depth of the carve-out in terms of the scope of the rules from which the carved-out procurement procedures are exempted. It should not apply in such a way as to require the widest possible circle of permitted participants for any given Article 20 reserved procurement procedure. Once a portion of the public procurement market has been segregated from the normal market and set aside for economic operators which are presumed to be uncompetitive due to the significant societal benefits they provide, I see no real benefit to the principles of market economy, or equal treatment from an insistence that the circle of permitted participants (presumed to be uncompetitive) be defined as broadly as possible. From a market economy perspective, it is \u2013 in my view \u2013 the size of the carve-out that matters, whereas the delineation of the circle of beneficiaries should be seen as an issue \u2013 and an instrument \u2013 of social and employment policy that is subject to the Member States\u2019 broad discretion."], "id": "76a9d4a0-736c-4ac8-90af-1a80734dd25b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["The full effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU and, in particular, the practical effect of the prohibition laid down in paragraph 1 of that provision would be put at risk if it were not open to any individual to claim damages for loss caused to him or her by a contract or by conduct liable to restrict or distort (judgments of 20 September 2001, Courage and Crehan, C\u2011453/99, EU:C:2001:465, paragraph 26, and of 14 March 2019, Skanska Industrial Solutions and Others, C\u2011724/17, EU:C:2019:204, paragraph 25)."], "id": "d39282f6-282b-4c7c-a618-59ca3f097424", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["For that reason, \u2018even if the applicant devotes part of its revenues to the funding of audiovisual products which require specific support, the normal play of , now open on an EEA scale, provides it with opportunities which the relevant clauses denied it as long as Paramount intended to require that they be respected\u2019 (paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal)."], "id": "ce43d655-73d5-4264-8e7f-377eacfa4639", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Is Article 10[(c) and (d)(i), (ii) and (v)] of [Directive 2014/24] compatible with the principle of equal treatment, whether or not read in conjunction with the principle of subsidiarity and with Articles 49 and 56 [TFEU], since the services mentioned therein are excluded from the application of the procurement rules in the aforementioned directive which nevertheless guarantee full and free movement in the procurement of services by public authorities?\u2019"], "id": "2d2d5b91-7257-4f35-b97e-d1c017aa0433", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["116. In order to ascertain whether that tax scheme conferred an advantage on the coordination centres, the Court of Justice considered it necessary, in the passage cited by the General Court in paragraph 142 of the judgment under appeal, to compare that regime with the ordinary tax system, under which the taxable income of any undertaking carrying on its activities in conditions of free represented the difference between its income and its outgoings. (66) Accordingly, the Court had concluded that the effect of the exclusion of staff costs and financial charges, which made a major contribution to enabling the coordination centres to earn revenue, from the expenditure which serves to determine the taxable income of those centres \u2018[was] that the transfer prices d[id] not resemble those which would [have been] charged in conditions of free competition\u2019. (67)"], "id": "489fc029-94a9-46e2-9b91-715f13e59bb3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Apart from the fact that, as the applicant itself states, the likelihood of obtaining clearance was high, a refusal by the authorities would not have led to the termination of the transaction. The price for TMSC was irreversibly paid by the applicant to Toshiba, which was able to enter it in its accounts in good time. It is therefore irrelevant whether the applicant is the ultimate acquirer of TMSC or whether it should have sold it to a third party purchaser of its choice."], "id": "7a23d477-5d39-4695-bd63-e6a6536b504c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["That court stated that the right to conclude an in-house transaction, provided for in Article 10(5) of the Law on Public Procurement, in the version in force from 1 July 2014 to 1 July 2017, cannot be an exception to the prohibitions on undermining between economic operators, on granting privileges to one economic operator, and discriminating against others, as laid down in Article 4(2) of the Law on Competition. The contested contract, according to that court, was unlawful, on the grounds, in particular, that it entailed a reduction in the quantity of services ordered from Irgita and, by concluding an in-house transaction, with no objective need, the contracting authority had granted to the undertaking that it controlled privileges liable to distort the conditions of competition between economic operators in the market for the maintenance of wooded areas in the city of Kaunas."], "id": "a496613c-46de-46f3-beeb-5808aba13501", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["The national courts must ensure that the exercise of the right to prevent the extraction or the reutilisation of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database does not result in an abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU or of national law, of the maker of that database on the market concerned or on a secondary market."], "id": "ca2998a2-3e42-4980-8007-36c0deecf69a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Last, and in response to Question 5, it must be observed that, where the parties to that agreement rely on its pro-competitive effects, those effects must, as elements of the context of that agreement, be duly taken into account for the purpose of its characterisation as a \u2018restriction by object\u2019, as recalled in paragraph 67 of the present judgment and in point 158 of the Opinion of the Advocate General, in so far as they are capable of calling into question the overall assessment of whether the concerted practice concerned revealed a sufficient degree of harm to and, consequently, of whether it should be characterised as a \u2018restriction by object\u2019."], "id": "06d60632-e7e8-4e0a-912c-7f07592e57f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Article 30(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, read in conjunction with Article 28(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation No 1307/2013 and amending Annex X to that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a young farmer, within the meaning of Article 30(11)(a) of Regulation No 1307/2013, read in conjunction with Article 50(2) of that regulation, who has already received, under Article 24 of that regulation, an initial allocation of payment entitlements in respect of the eligible hectares which he or she has declared at the time of his or her application is entitled to receive, subsequently, a further allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve equal to the number of additional eligible hectares that he or she now holds and for which he or she has not received any payment entitlement. That right is subject to the existence of sufficient available funds in the national or regional reserves. If that is not the case, the allocation must be made in such a way as to ensure the equal treatment of farmers eligible for entitlements under Article 30(6) of Regulation No 1307/2013 and to avoid distortions of the market and of ."], "id": "45d692e2-95fc-4026-a7a0-64ec457ca8c6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a civil action for damages, based on infringement of the rules of law, comes under \u2018matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict\u2019, within the meaning of that provision, including where the claimant and the defendant are parties to a contract and the alleged anticompetitive acts of which the former complains against the latter materialise in their contractual relations."], "id": "db01ca77-8063-4b3e-850e-22a218c1a807", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["130. That is all the more surprising for the fact that the Commission itself appears to begin from the premiss that the comparison of prices should be made \u2018at the level where in the EU takes place\u2019 (emphasis added), as is expressly apparent from recital 122 of the regulation at issue. In that context, reference should be made to the judgment in Kazchrome, (53) which has become final, in which the General Court stated that competition takes place at the level of the prices \u2018which could have led customers to opt for the applicants\u2019 goods instead of those of the [EU] industry\u2019. (54) That is necessarily where the related sales entity of an exporting producer established in the European Union sells to its end customer, and not at an intermediate stage. (55) It should be pointed out in that context that that approach has been applied more recently in the judgment in Jindal Saw, (56) and must therefore be regarded as sufficiently established in the case-law."], "id": "6756388b-8b9b-4737-af9c-d361fed1d643", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It is necessary and in the interest of recipients, in particular consumers, to ensure that it is possible for providers to offer multidisciplinary services and that restrictions in this regard be limited to what is necessary to ensure the impartiality, independence and integrity of the regulated professions. This does not affect restrictions or prohibitions on carrying out particular activities which aim at ensuring independence in cases in which a Member State entrusts a provider with a particular task, notably in the area of urban development, nor should it affect the application of rules.\u2019"], "id": "d0b7d1e8-8d54-4b2d-afc8-284ed5512010", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In order to rule on the first complaint, it is necessary, first of all, to clarify the scope of Hungary\u2019s commitments in respect of higher education services in the light of the rule on national treatment set out in Article XVII of the GATS; next, to examine the question whether the requirement of a prior international treaty modifies the conditions of to the benefit of national providers of such services or of the services which they supply, contrary to that provision; and, last, if so, to examine the arguments by which Hungary seeks to justify that modification on the basis of one of the exceptions provided for in Article XIV of the GATS."], "id": "db4d8f13-5c3c-4d84-ad67-613cfde74efd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, as the Board of Appeal stated, in essence, in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the contested decision, although it is clear from Article 9(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 9(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) that the registration of an EU trade mark confers on the proprietor exclusive rights therein, it follows from recital 10 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now recital 24 of Regulation 2017/1001) that there is no justification for protecting EU trade marks or, as against them, any trade mark which has been registered before them, except where the trade marks are actually used. An EU trade mark which is not used could obstruct by limiting the range of signs which can be registered as trade marks by others and by denying competitors the opportunity to use that trade mark or a similar one when putting onto the internal market goods or services which are identical or similar to those covered by the mark in question. Consequently, non-use of an EU trade mark also risks restricting the free movement of goods and services (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2012, Leno Merken, C\u2011149/11, EU:C:2012:816, paragraph 32)."], "id": "cbd05fdc-5307-42b7-9ea6-ea23922759d8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer considered that \u2018the test of the territorial extent of the unlawful conduct is not substantive, but adjectival, since it does not affect the nature of the infringement, but only its intensity\u2019. He disagreed with the approach taken in the judgment in Wilhelm and Others stating that: \u2018the rules which guarantee free within the European Union do not allow a distinction to be drawn between separate areas, the Community area and the national areas, as though there were watertight compartments. Both sectors are concerned with the supervision of free and open competition in the common market, one contemplating it in its entirety and the other from its separate components, but the essence is the same.\u2019 See Opinions of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Aalborg Portland and Others (C\u2011217/00 P, EU:C:2003:83, points 176, 173 and footnote 121), and in Aalborg Portland and Others (C\u2011213/00 P, EU:C:2003:84, points 94, 91 and footnote 71)."], "id": "cb0f5321-a4e8-491b-b6bf-f0cb48f0daf7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, in so far as the conduct at issue in the main proceedings which took place between 1999 and 1 May 2004 directly related to air transport services between airports in the European Union and in third countries and was capable of affecting trade between Member States for the purposes of Article 81(1) EC, which it is for the referring court to verify, that conduct did not fall within the scope of the provisions adopted pursuant to Article 83 EC, but was covered solely by the arrangements providing for the implementation of rules laid down in Articles 84 and 85 EC."], "id": "c0aafd7d-c8c9-43e2-b8b6-a2b427354d9e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, if an established operator eliminated, by such an agreement, a single insignificant potential competitor, among others, the effects on might not be appreciable, since there would continue to be competition between the established operator and the other potential competitors. However, if the established operator eliminates, by one or more agreements of that type, its sole or its few significant potential competitors, those agreements would affect to a very appreciable extent competition on the market concerned, or even eliminate it, at least for some time before new potential competitors emerged."], "id": "d8304572-d8ac-4682-ba77-6b5a320aa44a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["11 Recitals 3 to 6 of Directive 2011/96 are worded as follows: \u2018(3) The objective of this Directive is to exempt dividends and other profit distributions paid by subsidiary companies to their parent companies from withholding taxes and to eliminate double taxation of such income at the level of the parent company. (4) The grouping together of companies of different Member States may be necessary in order to create within the Union conditions analogous to those of an internal market and in order thus to ensure the effective functioning of such an internal market. Such operations should not to be hampered by restrictions, disadvantages or distortions arising in particular from the tax provisions of the Member States. It is therefore necessary, with respect to such grouping together of companies of different Member States, to provide for tax rules which are neutral from the point of view of , in order to allow enterprises to adapt to the requirements of the internal market, to increase their productivity and to improve their competitive strength at the international level. (5) Such grouping together may result in the formation of groups of parent companies and subsidiaries. (6) Before the entry into force of [Council] Directive 90/435/EEC [of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6),] the tax provisions governing the relations between parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States varied appreciably from one Member State to another and were generally less advantageous than those applicable to parent companies and subsidiaries of the same Member State. Cooperation between companies of different Member States was thereby disadvantaged in comparison with cooperation between companies of the same Member State. It was necessary to eliminate that disadvantage by the introduction of a common system in order to facilitate the grouping together of companies at Union level.\u2019"], "id": "ad3a4066-4207-4ea1-9d65-a71e765158b7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In conclusion, the bank of experience relied on before the Court to support the view that agreements such as the one at issue in the main proceedings are, by their very nature, harmful to appears rather meagre. However, it will be for the referring court to verify this point in detail, in view of the arguments and documentation relied on in the administrative decision in question."], "id": "3373be22-1420-40c8-a16b-07ba32363712", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["According to the Court\u2019s case-law, the Commission may adopt a decision on commitments when three conditions are fulfilled: (i) the Commission must express concerns, without it being necessary for it to establish that the conduct in question constitutes an infringement; (ii) the undertaking must offer commitments that adequately address the concerns expressed by the Commission; (iii) the decision to accept the commitments must in any event comply with the principle of proportionality, which is a general principle of EU law and is a criterion for the lawfulness of any act of the institutions of the European Union, including decisions taken by the Commission in its capacity as competition authority."], "id": "38e104ae-5726-4c50-942d-0a586b21e90b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission, supported by the ETPA, argues that the grounds set out in paragraphs 196 to 205 and 208 to 213 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by an error of law. The General Court found that the Commission, in the context of the calculation of the injury margin, was required to calculate the undercutting margin relating to resales of jumbo rolls by related companies on the basis of sales prices agreed between Schades and its independent customers and not, as it did, by applying, by analogy, Article 2(9) of the basic regulation by reducing the actual sales prices to a CIF EU border value. However, since there is no definition of, or method for calculating, the undercutting margin, the Commission submits that that calculation was within its broad discretion. In addition, its calculation was justified in view of Article 3(3) of the basic regulation, which provides that the issue of whether there has been significant price undercutting must be examined at the level of \u2018the dumped imports\u2019 and not at the level of their subsequent resale price on the Union market. The General Court\u2019s assessment incorrectly consisted of an assessment under law instead of trade policy law and incorrectly constructed, in a discriminatory manner, a separate export price for the calculation of the amount of dumping from the export price taken into account for the purpose of establishing injury."], "id": "76a44256-427d-4638-a224-9873e7e1e1bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["First, as regards the applicant\u2019s argument that the amount of the fines is disproportionate in the light of the size of the undertaking and the fine imposed by the Commission in its decision C(2009) 4416 final of 10 June 2009, imposing a fine for the implementation of a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/M.4994 \u2013 Electrabel/Compagnie nationale du Rh\u00f4ne), the fact that in the past the Commission has applied fines of a particular level for certain types of infringements does not mean that it is precluded from raising that level within the limits indicated in the relevant legislation if that is necessary to ensure the implementation of EU policy. Indeed, the proper application of the EU competition rules requires that the Commission be able at any time to adjust the level of fines to the needs of that policy (see judgment of 26 October 2017, Marine Harvest v Commission, T\u2011704/14, EU:T:2017:753, paragraph 603 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1b7ca782-8881-45ee-b7f3-c5873457aee6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Indeed, at the end of its analysis of the first two of the abovementioned criteria \u2013 namely Pometon\u2019s individual liability and the concrete influence of its infringing conduct on price \u2013, the General Court concludes, on the one hand, in paragraph 382 of the judgment under appeal, that Pometon, \u2018unlike Ervin and Winoa, but like MTS and W\u00fcrth, had a more limited role overall in the cartel\u2019 and, on the other hand, in paragraph 386 of the judgment under appeal, that the comparison of the value of specific sales in the EEA shows that \u2018Pometon\u2019s weight in the infringement is four times less than that of Winoa, but is relatively close to that of MTS and far higher than that of Ervin and W\u00fcrth\u2019. It is therefore only in the light of the third criterion \u2013 namely the size of the undertaking \u2013 that the General Court observes, in paragraph 390 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant was in a different situation from that of MTS since its turnover in the last year of full participation in the cartel was EUR 99890000 instead of EUR 25082293 for MTS."], "id": "af400427-cc90-4705-abf5-56fc3fead178", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["This means that, despite the serious consequences that application of the selection criteria had for Mr Di Bernardo, EPSO prevented him from learning what they were and, once he knew them and if applicable, from providing more targeted information on the aspects at issue. The scope of the statement of reasons must also be assessed by reference to the interest which the addressees of the measure may have in obtaining explanations. As the General Court very correctly observed in paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal, it was not until \u2018during the [annulment] proceedings\u2019 that the Commission \u2018only gradually\u2019 provided the statement of reasons of the decision at issue, necessary in order to assess whether it was lawful. It was therefore at a very late stage that Mr Di Bernardo was able to formulate an opinion on his allegedly insufficient professional experience. The General Court therefore committed no error of law whatsoever when it found that EPSO should have communicated the selection criteria in good time, that is to say, in the notice, in the letter of 27 October 2015 or, in any event, in its letter of 10 August 2016 responding to the request for review. That approach was in my view all the more necessary since the request for review must be interpreted as a request to be given individual explanations, as the General Court noted in paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal. The Commission\u2019s claim that Mr Di Bernardo did not at any time seek to know what the selection criteria were should accordingly be rejected, since that argument amounts to questioning EPSO\u2019s obligation to the applicants in the competition."], "id": "3383da94-2ab7-4093-b9db-eb127d08f069", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Much as this may be the most correct interpretation of the referring court\u2019s uncertainty, the fact remains that the Court continues to lack key data that would enable it to give a ruling with even a minimum degree of rigour on that uncertainty. That lack of data is apparent in particular in relation to the determination of whether the abuse was inevitable: i) in the context of a relevant market which has not been precisely specified; ii) given the between banking institutions; and iii) in the presence of services that may be substituted for those provided by Poste Italiane."], "id": "82fe77ac-2d48-4665-b026-c24ca30d6792", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["29. However, Article 1 of Directive 2014/104, entitled \u2018Subject matter and scope\u2019, states, in paragraph 2 thereof, that that directive sets out rules coordinating, inter alia, the enforcement of the rules \u2018in damages actions before national courts\u2019. Similarly, Article 22(2) of that directive, which concerns the temporal application of national transposition measures other than those transposing the substantive provisions of that directive, sets out their scope ratione temporis by reference to a date on which a national court was seised of an action for damages. (9)"], "id": "85e38083-9bcf-4ad8-9fc1-268aa18369d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["4. Recital 92 reads: \u2018When assessing the best price\u2013quality ratio contracting authorities should determine the economic and qualitative criteria linked to the subject matter of the contract that they will use for that purpose. Those criteria should thus allow for a comparative assessment of the level of performance offered by each tender in the light of the subject matter of the contract, as defined in the technical specifications. In the context of the best price\u2013quality ratio, a non-exhaustive list of possible award criteria which include environmental and social aspects is set out in this Directive. Contracting authorities should be encouraged to choose award criteria that allow them to obtain high-quality works, supplies and services that are optimally suited to their needs. The chosen award criteria should not confer an unrestricted freedom of choice on the contracting authority and they should ensure the possibility of effective and fair and be accompanied by arrangements that allow the information provided by the tenderers to be effectively verified. \u2026\u2019"], "id": "0a1bc643-ec63-46d4-8e65-1cae0e462a43", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled, first of all, that, according to Article 1 thereof, Regulation No 561/2006 aims to harmonise the conditions of in the road transport sector and to improve social conditions for employees to whom it applies, as well as to improve road safety, by requiring road transport vehicles to be equipped with an approved tachograph enabling compliance with driving times, breaks and rest periods for drivers to be monitored."], "id": "dc364cca-3b2e-4d8b-8be3-637acaf27cb4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In view of the fact that applicants seeking aid under an EU fund are in with one another to a greater or lesser extent, the situation is entirely comparable to that of public procurement law. In that area too, the managing authority must make a selection and inevitably reject some of the applicants. It is possible that the competitive situation in that area is more intense and requires particularly strict equal treatment in the procedure. However, this does nothing to change the fact that the State allocates a limited resource (a contract or funding) to some applicants only, to the exclusion of others. Therefore, the selection procedure must be transparent and non-discriminatory in that area also, as provided for in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24."], "id": "1fa8141c-f265-4494-9cf3-d42064130377", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, as has already been mentioned, the General Court concluded in paragraph 182 of the judgment under appeal that there is no doubt that the harm to caused by the \u2018A/R cartel configuration\u2019 was further increased by that \u2018European cartel configuration\u2019. In the appeal proceedings, Nexans does not call into question those findings made by the General Court, nor is there any indication that those findings are based on a distortion of evidence presented by Nexans at first instance."], "id": "60c46803-c9e3-4893-b458-28e894717c1b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["According to the settled case-law of the Court, the relevant point in time for identifying the legislation applicable to a public contract is when the authority not only chooses the type of procedure to be followed but also decides definitively whether it is necessary for a prior call for to be issued for the award of a public contract. If such a decision was taken before the date on which the period for transposition of the later directive, here Directive 2014/24, was reached, it would be plainly contrary to the principle of legal certainty to determine the law applicable to the case in the main proceedings by reference to the date of the award of the contract."], "id": "d2abe4b5-63ee-46a6-a8bb-6ba3876835a9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, as regards the preparation of the copy-images of the hard drives of the computers in question, it must be stated that it is apparent both from the wording of Article 20(2)(c) of Regulation No 1/2003 and from its context that, by permitting the Commission, by means of that provision, to \u2018take or obtain\u2019 in any form copies of or extracts from the books and other records related to the business as mentioned in Article 20(2)(b) of that regulation, the EU legislature referred to the evidence which the Commission is entitled to obtain, in order to place it in the file and, where appropriate, to use it in proceedings initiated to impose penalties in respect of infringements of EU law. Such evidence must therefore consist of documents covered by the subject matter of the inspection, which presupposes that the Commission has determined beforehand that that is the case (judgment of 16 July 2020, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission, C\u2011606/18 P, EU:C:2020:571, paragraph 58)."], "id": "80752b88-25dc-4ab2-866b-1b0800a4c421", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, I propose to answer the first question as follows: Article 26 of Regulation No 1169/2011 should be interpreted as having harmonised the conditions under which the indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of milk used as a final product or as an ingredient may be made mandatory by Member States. That provision does not, however, preclude Member States from making that indication mandatory on the basis of Article 39 of that regulation where this is justified by considerations such as the protection of public health, the rights of consumers, the avoidance of fraud or the prevention of unfair and where the conditions laid down in that provision are fulfilled."], "id": "b0f68b67-5084-491c-bdb4-97f0882968cd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the event that the Court does not consider that the contested measure is a selling arrangement in compliance with the judgment of 24 November 1993, Keck and Mithouard (C\u2011267/91 and C268/91, EU:C:1993:905) and considers that it is a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction, Hungary reiterates its claim that the contested measure is both appropriate and proportionate in the light of its objective of general interest to ensure fair commercial dealings and improve the position of producers in the food supply chain. In that regard, Hungary notes that the Commission has not indicated what type of measure would be more proportionate while achieving the same objective. Hungary considers that the restriction of the freedom of retailers improves between producers, as retailers cannot eliminate a producer\u2019s competitive advantage by applying a higher margin, thus depriving the consumer of the possibility of benefiting from competition in the producers\u2019 market. The application of a higher margin to a product is likely to eliminate the hard-fought purchase price reduction in the producers\u2019 market and the resulting competitive advantage, with the result that the consumer will also have to pay more for the product. By setting the retail margin, the retailer will also have an incentive, in the case of products for which consumers are guided by price, to choose products solely on the basis of their purchase price. This will increase competition at producer level and consumers will also benefit. Furthermore, retailers retain the possibility of applying price reductions when launching new products and of using marketing tools based on a transitional price reduction, provided that the price margins applied to the products are equalised over a six-month period."], "id": "3f1b57cb-879a-4113-b3be-853f44d7022a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["I would also have some intellectual difficulty in seeing how exactly the PWD promotes the \u2018transnational provision of services\u2019. If anything, the very purpose of the PWD is to limit the free transnational provision of services, by putting accent on the rights of workers and on a climate of fair , particularly in relation to the countries to which the workers are being posted."], "id": "d29fefe2-da6a-4a28-81c9-0844a843ea77", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["116. In that regard, first of all, it seems to me indisputable that, from a procedural viewpoint, evidence of an absence of anticompetitive effects put forward ex post must be taken into account by a authority, in particular when that evidence relates to conduct which ceased well before the decision finding abuse. Indeed, in the judgment in Intel, the Court explained that, in the case where an undertaking submits, during the administrative procedure, on the basis of supporting evidence, that its conduct was not capable of restricting competition, the Commission is required to examine a number of matters in order to assess whether the conduct in question was capable of excluding from the market competitors that were at least as efficient. (104) Moreover, a capacity to foreclose is relevant also to the assessment of whether particular conduct may be objectively justified or whether its restrictive effects may be counterbalanced by advantages in terms of efficiency. (105) In that context, economic evidence demonstrating, after that conduct has come to an end, the absence of exclusionary effects must be considered admissible when the dominant undertaking is seeking to prove the absence of a capacity to restrict competition. Moreover, the anticompetitive effect of a particular practice must not be purely hypothetical (106) and supporting evidence contesting the capacity to restrict competition may corroborate such a hypothetical nature. Therefore, from a procedural viewpoint, since the burden of proving anticompetitive exclusionary effects rests on the competition authorities, I consider that those authorities are under an obligation to take careful account of the evidence produced by the dominant undertaking when they are analysing the possible existence of abuse."], "id": "a9d2b9ab-ac8d-4a76-b23e-0bc050f614ad", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["The final award of the contract to CT was challenged before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale, Lombardia-Milano (Regional Administrative Court, Lombardy-Milan, Italy) by AV and BU. In their action AV and BU claimed, inter alia, that the statutory right of pre-emption of employees of municipal pharmacies is contrary to the principles of free and equal treatment laid down in EU law. They noted that the right of pre-emption entails a significant advantage for those employees. The employees in question may replace competitors in a tender procedure, without even participating in the procedure upon exercising their unconditional right conferred by statute to conclude the contract. AV and BU submitted that the statutory right of pre-emption at issue is not legally justifiable."], "id": "ab36e123-7019-49f0-8166-0d3f65dfab39", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In cases such as those described in the previous two points, the failure of law to intervene would result in a false negative since \u2014 according to the concept of market self-correction \u2014 the price would mistakenly be considered not to be above the competitive price. In cases of this type, there is more at issue than simply the distortion of competition. Indeed, this could amount to an attack on some of the fundamental values of our society, such as social equality, where there is a point at which differences in the possession of basic goods cannot depend on earning capacity without undermining social cohesion. In our society, healthcare \u2014 and thus the availability of medicines considered essential \u2014 and the consumption of culture are intrinsic aspects of belonging to a community. In those areas, therefore, the issue of \u2018unfair prices\u2019 is more acute. This is especially the case during an economic recession or when there is heightened public awareness of social inequality. The concept of excessive prices characterises EU competition law precisely because it is framed within a legal system and is engendered by an economic culture which makes reference to the \u2018social market economy\u2019 (Article 3(3) TEU)."], "id": "a4e7c304-4564-46ae-9572-6db4f3cc5dd6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It is also apparent from Article 13 of Directive 2002/20, read in conjunction with recital 32 thereof, that a fee charged to operators of telecommunications services for the use of radio frequencies must pursue the purpose of ensuring optimal use of those frequencies and not hinder the development of innovative services and on the market (judgment of 21 March 2013, Belgacom and Others, C\u2011375/11, EU:C:2013:185, paragraph 47)."], "id": "3df4d44a-9c17-4568-b925-17f958a94cda", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["The Court held on that occasion that \u2018Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, first, provides that the limitation period in respect of actions for damages is three years and starts to run from the date on which the injured party was aware of its right to compensation, even if unaware of the identity of the person liable and, secondly, does not include any possibility of suspending or interrupting that period during proceedings before the national authority\u2019."], "id": "74e48bd1-0d38-46d9-9547-af6fd483feaf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["(Competition \u2013 Agreements, decisions and concerted practices \u2013 Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors \u2013 Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement \u2013 Price coordination throughout the EEA \u2013 Concerted practice \u2013 Exchanges of sensitive business information \u2013 Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission \u2013 Rights of the defence and right to be heard \u2013 Inalterability of the measure \u2013 Single and continuous infringement \u2013 Restriction of by object \u2013 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines \u2013 Value of sales \u2013 Obligation to state reasons \u2013 Proportionality \u2013 Equal treatment \u2013 Gravity of the infringement \u2013 Mitigating circumstances \u2013 Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines \u2013 Unlimited jurisdiction)"], "id": "8a969299-6359-4c12-99a2-6593e5fc6dc3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["73. As a rule, then, \u2018technical specifications should be drafted in such a way as to avoid artificially narrowing down through requirements that favour a specific economic operator by mirroring key characteristics of the supplies, services or works habitually offered by that economic operator. Drawing up the technical specifications in terms of functional and performance requirements generally allows that objective to be achieved in the best way possible\u2019. (20)"], "id": "d856e9f1-bbe5-4d5d-94b8-18e680ccf0d4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, in so far as the conditions laid down in Article 107(3)(b) TFEU are fulfilled, that is to say, in the present case, that the Member State concerned is indeed confronted with a serious disturbance in its economy and that the aid measures adopted to remedy that disturbance are, first, necessary for that purpose and, secondly, appropriate and proportionate, those measures are presumed to be adopted in the interests of the European Union, so that that provision does not require the Commission to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted , contrary to what is laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. In other words, such a balancing exercise would have no raison d\u2019\u00eatre in the context of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as its result is presumed to be positive. Indeed, the fact that a Member State manages to remedy a serious disturbance in its economy can only benefit the European Union in general and the internal market in particular."], "id": "b0223185-21e6-43f6-92c4-0fab49d85a91", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["3. It is against that background that the referring court asks the Court to clarify certain aspects of the concept of \u2018abuse\u2019 within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, namely: \u2013 the constituent elements of abusive conduct, allowing a clear line to be drawn between practices which come within the scope of so-called \u2018normal\u2019 , on the one hand, and those which come within the scope of distorted competition, on the other; \u2013 more philosophically, the interests protected by Article 102 TFEU, for the purpose of ascertaining the evidence that must be taken into consideration when assessing whether there is abusive conduct; \u2013 the admissibility and the relevance of evidence submitted ex post by the dominant undertakings demonstrating the absence of actual effects of allegedly abusive conduct in order to contest the capacity of that conduct to have restrictive effects on competition; and \u2013 the relevance of the intention to restrict competition in the assessment of the abusive nature of particular conduct."], "id": "2b6ee2ce-aecc-49ae-9af7-44d2b94b7f80", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["76. In order to decide whether that tax regime conferred an advantage on the coordination centres, the Court of Justice considered it necessary, as it stated in the passage cited by the General Court in paragraph 142 of the judgment under appeal, to compare that tax regime with the ordinary tax system, in which the taxable income of any undertaking carrying on its activities in conditions of free corresponded to the difference between the income and outgoings of that undertaking. (43) Thus, the Court of Justice had concluded that the effect of excluding staff costs and financial charges \u2013 which made a major contribution to enabling the coordination centres to earn revenue \u2013 from the expenditure which served to determine the taxable income of those centres was that \u2018the transfer prices [did] not resemble those which would [have been] charged in conditions of free competition\u2019. (44)"], "id": "fca30033-d33c-4180-9c95-c128c2102604", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the judgments of 15 June 1976, EMI Records (51/75, EU:C:1976:85), of 3 July 1985, Binon (243/83, EU:C:1985:284), and of 30 May 2013, Quinn Barlo and Others v. Commission (C\u201170/12 P, not published, EU:C:2013:351), that it is the economic effects of the anticompetitive conduct, and not its legal form, that are relevant for the assessment of its duration. The economic effects of a restriction of may continue even after the formal termination of a single and continuous infringement, for example, until the end of the period during which the collusive prices were in force."], "id": "815fc37d-e980-442f-91bc-223b578e0276", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["For the same reasons, the General Court erred in its conclusion that undertakings other than Banedanmark that have obtained licences operate on local sections of the railway network which form a kind of natural monopoly. In addition, the reasoning in the judgments under appeal concerning operators established in other Member States which are in possession of a licence and concerning the optional nature of liberalisation of the railway sector are not pertinent, since the Danish licensing system shows that the market has been liberalised and is open to ."], "id": "e46833c9-dfd6-4730-9766-eb3ecf661ff1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It submits, by the first part of this ground of appeal, that the condition that the applicant must be directly concerned by the act at issue has to be examined in full within the framework of that third situation and it is not permissible for the EU judicature to rely, for that purpose, on the decision resulting from its examination of one of the other two situations referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. It is apparent from the judgment of 6 November 2018, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission, Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori and Commission v Ferracci (C\u2011622/16 P to C\u2011624/16 P, EU:C:2018:873) that that condition must be interpreted differently in, respectively, the second and third situations provided for in that provision. So far as concerns proof that the appellant is directly concerned by the act at issue, for the purposes of the third situation \u2013 applicable in the case of an aid scheme \u2013that is set out in that provision, the appellant submits that it follows from that judgment that it is for it to prove that the act at issue is actually liable to restrict . The present case is comparable to the case which gave rise to that judgment and must result in a similar assessment of the condition that the applicant is directly concerned by the act at issue. In that regard, the appellant inter alia set out and proved in what way the two schedules of airport charges at issue discriminated against other airlines, including vis-\u00e0-vis Ryanair."], "id": "e8c4274b-0447-45a0-8216-b5accfbd5491", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["By preventing unequal treatment between entities which, like the entity in question in the main proceedings, produce the electricity they need and those which are supplied by third parties for the purpose of producing energy products, that directive contributes to the achievement of the objectives of Directive 2003/96, since, by making provision for a system of harmonised taxation of energy products and electricity, it seeks, inter alia, as is apparent from recitals 2 to 5 and 24 of that directive, to promote the proper functioning of the internal market in the energy sector by avoiding, in particular, distortions of (judgment of 27 June 2018, Turbog\u00e1s, C\u201190/17, EU:C:2018:498, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "b3d1d8c7-b5a2-440f-a3b3-b24fdd5c2554", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Even assuming that the allocation of that sum to FSE could be understood as having been made for the sole purpose of construction of railway infrastructure, and not for any other purposes, it nevertheless concerns railway infrastructure which is not made available to potential users on equal and non-discriminatory terms, given that FSE has an exclusive right to that use for the duration of its contract concluded with the Apulia Region. Therefore, the fact that FSE is required to keep separate accounts does not affect the conclusion according to which the allocation of the sum of EUR 70 million to that undertaking was capable of distorting ."], "id": "3621a725-2205-4663-9558-7ae703059dcc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In order to answer that question, it is necessary, first, to consider whether the criteria thus envisaged by the referring court are relevant for assessing the restrictive effects of the agreements concerned in the present case. It is then necessary to examine what is meant, in the present case, by the requirement that, for an agreement to be caught by the prohibition by reason of its effects, those effects on must be appreciable."], "id": "3f33ccfb-faa6-4255-b67f-5b64e94e15fb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["The appellants claim that the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons for its decisions. They argue, first, that it is impossible to understand on what evidence the General Court relied when it found, in paragraph 67 of the judgment under appeal, that Silver Plastics had participated in the alleged anticompetitive meeting of 13 June 2002. At no time, they submit, did the General Court explain why the handwritten notes referred to in paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal reveal an infringement of EU law. In addition, in paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court sought to demonstrate only how the arguments put forward by the appellants do not necessarily demonstrate that another meeting \u2013 the object of which was not anticompetitive and which was held on the same day and was attended by representatives of Silver Plastics \u2013 began at 9.00, and that, consequently, representatives of Silver Plastics could not have participated in the anticompetitive meeting held at the same time. By contrast, the reasons why the General Court concluded that the meeting which did not have an anticompetitive object started later remain unclear. The appellants point out that they do not call into question the General Court\u2019s assessment of the evidence, but criticise it on the ground that it did not actively substantiate its assumptions."], "id": "2087362e-6990-42e1-a2fe-c015985332f8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission also points out that the inclusion of activities carried on outside the European Union within the scope of the concept of a \u2018VIU\u2019 does not imply that non-EU undertakings become subjects of the rights and obligations arising from EU law and does not broaden the powers of the European Union. According to the Commission, the transmission system operators subject to the rules on effective unbundling are already operating within the European Union. The inclusion of activities carried on outside the European Union in the definition of a \u2018VIU\u2019 makes it possible to evaluate the effects of those activities in the European Union. There is no principle of law or international law that precludes an interpretation of this kind."], "id": "d63c839f-f8fe-4d6c-9196-8a1d4e62e099", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It is into that context, which I have only very briefly described, that fall some of the limitations on the contractual freedom of the parties that are at issue in this case, such as the limitation arising from Paramount\u2019s obligation not to include in any new licence agreements clauses which create absolute barriers to intra-EU and frustrate the objective of establishing the single market, referred to in Article 3(3) TEU, or the principle asserted in the case-law and recalled by the General Court in accordance with which the rules on copyright guarantee only remuneration that is \u2018reasonable\u2019 in relation to the economic value of the service provided and clauses which provide for a higher level of remuneration might not be permissible if they are premised on the national partitioning of markets resulting from the absolute territorial protection of national licensees."], "id": "9976d005-1a4c-4a56-9e79-5696aba38bed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the event that the Court should consider that Paragraph 3(2)(u) of Law XCV of 2009 falls within the scope of Article 34 TFEU, Hungary considers that the measure may be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, is appropriate for achieving its objective and is proportionate. The principal objective of Paragraph 3(2)(u) of Law XCV of 2009 is to create a level playing field between suppliers by imposing an additional obligation on retailers, who generally have significant market power, thus ensuring effective . The measure is limited to basic homogeneous foodstuffs and simply requires the retailer not to apply a different profit margin to identical products from different Member States. Moreover, the concept of identical product is narrowly defined. In addition, the measure applies equally to imported and domestic products."], "id": "fbfac9b2-bda4-4770-adf1-0a22a65f43f8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, contrary to the Kingdom of Belgium\u2019s assertions, the power to adopt measures to promote effective on the electricity and natural gas markets should not lie exclusively with the national competition authorities. As stated in recital 37 of Directive 2009/72 and recital 33 of Directive 2009/73, the regulatory authority must have the power to decide, irrespective of the application of competition rules, on appropriate measures ensuring customer benefits through the promotion of effective competition necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market in electricity and natural gas. As is apparent from the use of the term \u2018impose\u2019 in Article 37(4)(b) of Directive 2009/72 and Article 41(4)(b) of Directive 2009/73, that power must permit the adoption of binding measures."], "id": "bdd76444-712e-4685-8b7c-c96c3ae97b73", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that the facts which gave rise to the judgment of 6 July 1995, AITEC and Others v Commission (T\u2011447/93 to T\u2011449/93, EU:T:1995:130) are different from those in the present case. That case-law is therefore not capable of establishing that, in the present case, the Commission was required to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid as regards the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 107(3)(b) TFEU against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted . The applicant\u2019s argument in that regard must therefore be rejected."], "id": "a57cc196-6a3a-4fde-9a3a-c3dc66b44ac7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover and in any event, as Advocate General Bobek recently explained in his Opinion in Budapest Bank and Others, the fact that a authority or a competent court does not have to examine the effects of an agreement if it has been found that that agreement has an anticompetitive object, does not mean that that authority or court cannot at the same time examine whether an agreement has both an anticompetitive object and anticompetitive effects. Similarly, it may also examine only whether an agreement has anticompetitive effects, if it deems that to be necessary and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. However, as Advocate General Bobek also noted, it is for that authority or court to gather the necessary evidence and make the legal categorisation of that evidence for each type of infringement concerned."], "id": "c18f4061-82f7-4f46-ad26-6ed3149a2738", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the judgment in that case (judgment of 12 September 2019, Koton Ma\u011fazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO (C\u2011104/18 P, EU:C:2019:724, paragraph 45)), the Court first recalled that EU trade mark rules are aimed at contributing to the system of undistorted in the European Union. In that system, each undertaking must, in order to attract and retain customers by the quality of its goods or services, be able to have registered as trade marks signs which enable the consumer, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish those goods or services from others which have a different origin."], "id": "514e795e-05bf-4d18-ac25-fc595869aa12", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it is apparent from settled case-law that the applicable directive is, as a rule, the one in force when the contracting authority chooses the type of procedure to be followed and decides definitively whether a prior call for needs to be issued for the award of a public contract. Conversely, the provisions of a directive are not applicable if the period prescribed for its transposition expired after that date (judgment of 27 November 2019, Tedeschi and Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, C\u2011402/18, EU:C:2019:1023, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "fc6fb341-7ed2-4c4e-bfb8-51a835873099", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It is for the referring court to examine those claims in order to check whether they are credible enough to warrant closer scrutiny. Should the referring court come to the conclusion that the MIF Agreement could reasonably have had some procompetitive effects and that those positive effects are not clearly outweighed by other, more profound, anticompetitive effects, that agreement cannot be classified as restrictive of by object. In that case, an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU can only be established following an analysis of the effects of the agreement."], "id": "4f4ea712-7937-4965-8391-05ab8734d54e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It is thus evident that the objectives pursued by the national provisions at issue are the same as those present in the regulation. At the hearing, the Lithuanian Government itself admitted as much. The EU legislature devised Article 148 of Regulation No 1308/2013 precisely after having taken into account considerations of the same nature as the ones motivating the adoption by the Lithuanian legislature of the contested provisions of the Law on the prohibition of unfair practices. What was reached is perhaps a different balance between the same values: when seeking to reconcile the objectives of free with the specific objectives of the common agricultural policy, including the aim to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers in the milk sector reinforcing their bargaining power and protecting them against unfair commercial practices, the EU legislature chose, instead of the perhaps more robust measures adopted by the Lithuanian legislature, to allow merely for the possibility to render it compulsory for Member States to require a written contract."], "id": "555d4234-8c18-4dae-a9ac-2435572e5423", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Those paragraphs of the judgment under appeal form part of an assessment of the documentary evidence of the Commission\u2019s file, by which the General Court, in essence, confirmed the body of evidence adduced by the Commission, in accordance with the case-law on proof of infringements in the field of law. According to that case-law, that evidence may be provided by the Commission, by means of a body of objective and consistent evidence, which, viewed as a whole, may, in the absence of another plausible explanation, constitute evidence of such an infringement even if one or another piece of that body of evidence is not, in itself, sufficient in this respect (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 January 2017, Commission v Keramag Keramische Werke and Others, C\u2011613/13 P, EU:C:2017:49, paragraphs 50 to 52)."], "id": "d9ef95d9-21ba-43dd-9ee8-41e3b82b59aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Arriva Italia, supported by the Commission, takes the opposite position and submits that that allocation distorts . The Commission contends that the allocation of EUR 70 million must be used to ensure the continued operation of FSE. It stresses, however, that, should it be considered that that allocation can be used only to finance the railway infrastructure, it would nonetheless be liable to distort competition. In the Commission\u2019s view, this is because, although there is no competition on the market for the operation of that infrastructure and the market for the provision of passenger transport services, there is competition for those markets. It follows that the allocation of EUR 70 million may have distorted competition as it allowed FSE to remain on the market, thereby preventing other players from being entrusted with the two activities mentioned above."], "id": "cec11e02-d7f4-4274-a5a5-8422d4c4ee69", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["That further assessment presupposes that certain conditions which could also bring the interest of consumers within the national court\u2019s overall assessment are met, namely: (a) the decision of the national authority should not appear prima facie unlawful for reasons other than those relating to the limitation period and (b) the content of the decision of the national competition authority being challenged must in theory provide a basis for follow-on actions by a substantial number of consumers who have suffered a loss as a result of unlawful conduct on the part of the undertakings penalised."], "id": "eb279c43-d605-414c-8da7-7afcec967872", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, I would add that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns a rather specific set of circumstances and that the five-year limitation period established by the national legislation appeared, at first glance, to preclude any intervention by the authority. The need effectively to enforce Article 101 TFEU cannot justify artificially extending the duration of the infringement, in particular beyond the perpetrators\u2019 intention to infringe, for the purpose of enabling proceedings to be brought. The imperative is all the greater given that, as the Commission highlighted, the duration of the infringement is a factor to which regard is had in fixing the amount of the fine."], "id": "0423277d-760c-4e39-ad90-b965b609f0d2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["104. In that regard, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that, since Article 102 TFEU is aimed not only at practices which may cause prejudice to consumers directly, but also at those which are detrimental to them through their impact on an effective structure, a competition authority, or, where appropriate, a court, will not have to examine whether the conduct in question has actually caused harm to consumers for the purposes of subparagraph (b) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, but will have to examine whether the conduct at issue has had a restrictive effect on competition. (85) Indeed, it is normally the potentially harmful nature of the conduct that is taken into account in order to establish an abuse of a dominant position, without it being necessary to show any concrete effect, in particular in relation to consumers. (86)"], "id": "edac0c3c-1143-4cbc-8afa-4cc21b4bc694", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["As provided for in Decision ADM-16-60 of 23 November 2016, on the appointment of members of the selection board for the , as last amended by Decision ADM-16-60-Rev4 of 19 September 2017 on the appointment of members of the selection board for the competition, EUIPO set up a selection board consisting of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson, eight full members and three alternate members. The chairperson, the vice-chairperson, the eight full members and two of the three alternate members were agents of EUIPO and the third alternate member was an agent of the European Commission."], "id": "5920b494-7924-487d-bae3-bb7c01f28f91", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["78. The appellants \u2013 supported by the interveners \u2013 contend, in particular, that the General Court erred in law in concluding, in paragraphs 101 and 102 of the judgment under appeal, that the mere possibility that the parties to the manipulation would offer better conditions than their competitors (due to the informational asymmetry concerning the Euribor levels) reveals a sufficient degree of harm to that gave rise to an infringement \u2018by object\u2019. The General Court should have censured the Commission for failing to consider the key issue of whether knowledge of the manipulation on 19 March 2007 gave traders the incentive to offer more competitive rates than their competitors. In that regard, HSBC submitted, before the General Court, an expert report according to which the participating traders did not have the incentive to offer more competitive rates because to do so would have reduced their profits. The General Court\u2019s finding, in paragraph 101 of the judgment under appeal, that this report \u2018contained only general assertions\u2019 is, according to the appellants, a manifest distortion of that evidence."], "id": "a72fbe8c-a6bb-4ebd-8cf3-72a4c11c8d1b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Judgments of 7 January 2004, Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission (C\u2011204/00 P, C\u2011205/00 P, C\u2011211/00 P, C\u2011213/00 P, C\u2011217/00 P and C\u2011219/00 P, EU:C:2004:6, paragraph 338), and of 14 February 2012, Toshiba Corporation and Others (C\u201117/10, EU:C:2012:72, paragraph 97). For the sake of completeness, I should specify that the relevance of the third condition mentioned in point 95 above, namely the unity of the legal interest protected, has been questioned. According to case-law, EU rules and national competition rules pursue \u2018different ends\u2019 (see judgment of 13 February 1969, Wilhelm and Others, 14/68, EU:C:1969:4, paragraph 11) and they protect, therefore, different legal interests. It follows that the principle ne bis in idem does not preclude that separate fines are imposed on the same undertaking for the infringement of, on the one side, EU competition rules, and, on the other side, national competition rules. However, the relevance of the condition that the legal interest protected must be the same is disputed since, first, that condition is not applied in areas of EU law other than competition law (see Opinions of Advocate General Kokott in Toshiba Corporation and Others, C\u201117/10, EU:C:2011:552, point 116, and of Advocate General Campos S\u00e1nchez-Bordona in Menci, C\u2011524/15, EU:C:2017:667, point 27), and, second, it is at odds with the increasing convergence of EU and national competition rules and with the decentralisation for the application of EU competition rules brought about by Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in [Articles 101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (see Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Toshiba Corporation and Others, C\u201117/10, EU:C:2011:552, points 121 to 123; Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Powszechny Zak\u0142ad Ubezpiecze\u0144 na \u017bycie, C\u2011617/17, EU:C:2018:976, point 48; and Veenbrink, M., \u2018Bringing Back Unity: Modernizing the Application of the Non Bis in Idem Principle\u2019, World Competition, 2019, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp. 67 to 86). That question, however, does not arise in the present case, for the reason set out in point 101 below."], "id": "31c1c629-6529-47a3-a8de-000daca581a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Since Femern Landanl\u00e6g is not capable of carrying out the activities of constructing or maintaining the rail connections itself, the General Court was right to find, in paragraph 126 of the first judgment under appeal and in paragraph 101 of the second judgment under appeal, that the existence of companies carrying out those activities on the Danish railway network, including following a competitive tendering procedure for the award of a contract, does not demonstrate that the activities of managing or operating the railway infrastructure performed by Femern Landanl\u00e6g in that sector are also open to ."], "id": "df6b7e82-3c34-4bf9-b992-0f904c129c19", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It should be noted that, according to settled case-law, classification of a measure as \u2018State aid\u2019, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, requires all of the following conditions to be fulfilled. First, there must be an intervention by the State or through State resources. Second, the intervention must be liable to affect trade between Member States. Third, it must confer a selective advantage on the recipient. Fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort (see judgment of 21 October 2020, Eco TLC, C\u2011556/19, EU:C:2020:844, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e68e2960-07c8-4592-b103-b865ea7f7230", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["By analogy, in the context of an action for damages for abuse of a dominant position in which a buyer takes issue with his or her supplier for imposing unfair selling prices (see point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU), it may be necessary, in order to establish that that conduct actually occurred, to determine what is said in the contract. Where the parties disagree as to the exact prices specified in the contract \u2013 for example because the prices are based on a complex calculation formula, because they take different variables into account, etc. \u2013 the clauses in the contract relating to prices may have to be interpreted by the court. Here too, however, it will be a matter of a simple preliminary issue, seeking to establish the reality of the conduct complained of, in order to allow the court to resolve the main issue of the legality of the conduct in the light of law."], "id": "138a856a-3847-423a-815f-40b77bd484e1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["\u20183. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, the contracting authority may not disclose information the disclosure of which would infringe the rules on the provision of information and protection of data or otherwise be contrary to the general interest, would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of a particular supplier or would adversely affect between suppliers.\u2019"], "id": "58391028-8eed-49ee-9ec8-e95abbf66371", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that the first sentence of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of the Member States are relieved of their competence to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in the case where the Commission initiates proceedings for the purposes of adopting a decision finding an infringement of those provisions in so far as that formal act relates to the same alleged infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, committed by the same undertaking or undertakings on the same product market or markets and the same geographical market or markets during the same period or periods as those concerned by the proceeding or proceedings previously brought by those authorities."], "id": "9ee360ee-b152-4d6d-b9a4-41aeb46080be", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the Court has previously held that it cannot be said that Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, which allows a authority to suspend or close a case on the ground that another authority is dealing with the same case or has dealt with it, and recital 18, from which it is apparent that \u2018the objective [is] that each case should be handled by a single authority\u2019, establish a criterion for allocating or dividing up cases or competencies between the Commission and the national authority or authorities that may have an interest in the case in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 December 2014, Si.mobil v Commission, T\u2011201/11, EU:T:2014:1096, paragraph 38)."], "id": "582aeddf-ad73-41d2-a0e9-62bf4c099951", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["It may be inferred from the foregoing that the EU legislature complied with the requirements of the principle of proportionality, without manifestly exceeding its broad discretion in a technical and complex field such as that in question here, when it opted for a measure (to introduce the concept of remuneration) capable of attaining the objectives pursued. That measure itself makes it easier to improve protection for posted workers and to guarantee fair between local undertakings and those that post their workers."], "id": "fb36f981-5d02-449d-a891-b8dee7c1162f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["However, both the interim injunction and the legal undertaking not to enter the market at issue in the main proceedings were to last for only a few months until the outcome of the respective disputes. Therefore, even though GUK and Alpharma were temporarily prevented from entering the market with generic paroxetine while those measures were in force, that does not establish that there was no longer potential between those generic manufacturers and GSK."], "id": "685becf2-98f1-4c2b-b66e-512de15cd20a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, it seems to me that the Authorisation Directive does not preclude charges or fees other than those provided for by Articles 12 and 13 thereof being imposed for the provision of electronic communications networks and services, subject, however, to the condition that such charges or fees do not undermine the effectiveness of that directive, that is, that they do not create obstacles to the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services or to the promotion of in the provision of such networks and services."], "id": "a9f05553-e25b-4b1b-b09f-905a11553932", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competition", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, the existence of interim injunctions or legal undertakings, such as those in the present case, temporarily prohibiting the generic manufacturers from entering the market pending the outcome of legal proceedings regarding the patent\u2019s validity or whether the generic product infringed it, cannot cast doubt on the existence of potential between the holder of a patent for a medicinal product and a generic manufacturer wishing to enter the market with a generic version of that medicinal product."], "id": "b9dc4e88-908d-4e81-b8e6-b40e55966274", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 93/13/EEC \u2013 Unfair terms in consumer contracts \u2013 Mortgage loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency (Swiss francs) \u2013 Limitation \u2013 Article 4(2) \u2013 Main subject matter of the contract \u2013 Terms exposing the borrower to a foreign exchange risk \u2013 Requirements of intelligibility and transparency \u2013 Burden of proof \u2013 Article 3(1) \u2013 Significant imbalance \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 Contractual term that is in plain, intelligible language \u2013 Principle of effectiveness)"], "id": "bc942896-82c0-4e71-94c1-4cfd16e0bb8a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["It should be stated at the outset that the fact that the Belgian authorities have produced consumer complaints as evidence does not mean that they have put themselves in a position which differs from that of a person governed by private law in analogous proceedings. While a association may be a private law body not exercising public powers, it can gather such complaints and use them in proceedings against businesses."], "id": "40aa3d8b-92c6-461f-84f7-fb0d6bd26cba", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["By orders of 28 January 2018, the Verwaltungsgericht M\u00fcnchen (Administrative Court, Munich), upon application of Deutsche Umwelthilfe, required payment by the Land of Bavaria of a financial penalty in the sum of EUR 4000 because it had failed to comply with a point of the operative part of the order of 27 February 2017, and threatened to impose upon it an additional financial penalty of the same amount if it did not comply, within a fresh period, with another point of the operative part of that order. On the other hand, that court dismissed, in particular, the application for coercive detention of the Minister for the Environment and of the Land of Bavaria or, failing this, of its Minister-President. The Land of Bavaria appealed against the orders of 28 January 2018 to the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria), which dismissed the appeals by order of 14 August 2018."], "id": "56873b07-1324-4ad7-8f38-1eaa6146414e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, the referring court takes the view that, in order to comply with the principle of effectiveness of EU law, it would be possible for the Slovenian courts to adopt a less strict interpretation of the principle of legal formality referred to in paragraph 28 above, by allowing a court before which an application for enforcement has been brought to determine of its own motion whether a term is unfair at that procedural stage. During that stage, the court is required to make a complete finding in respect of all the legally determining facts, including those on which the parties do not agree. In addition, the notarial instrument is better suited to determining the substance of the case than classic enforceable instruments issued by courts. In addition, Article 4 of the Law on notaries provides that the debtor must expressly accept that the instrument is directly enforceable, which precludes the possibility that public policy provisions such as provisions relating to unfair terms could be circumvented by obtaining the debtor\u2019s agreement. On the basis of such an interpretation, a court before which an application for enforcement had been brought would therefore be able to refuse of its own motion enforcement of a notarial instrument, such as the notarial instrument at issue, which was accepted by the debtor in breach of public policy provisions."], "id": "a326f3d8-498e-4259-8ca0-ee941489ed95", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property \u2013 Payment or savings account \u2013 Obligation for the borrower to deposit his or her income in a payment account during a period fixed by the loan agreement \u2013 Individual advantage \u2013 Directive 2007/64/EC \u2013 Article 45(2) \u2013 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 \u2013 Article 55(2) \u2013 Directive 2014/17/EU \u2013 Article 4(26) and (27) \u2013 Tying practice \u2013 Bundling practice \u2013 Article 12(1) \u2013 Article 12(2)(a) \u2013 Article 12(3) \u2013 Directive 2014/92/EU)"], "id": "a6b5a527-ab0a-41e3-924d-3c2d1bb4f704", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["51 can be assured only if account is taken of his actual and therefore current interests, and not his interests in the circumstances existing when the contract at issue was concluded, as the Advocate General also observed, in essence, in points 62 and 63 of his Opinion. Similarly, the consequences against which those interests must be protected are those which would actually occur, in the circumstances existing or foreseeable at the time when the dispute arose, if the court were to annul that contract, and not those which would result from the annulment of the contract on the date of its conclusion."], "id": "eb1992f9-edb7-416d-826f-d2bae7b88c92", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["47 In the light of those considerations, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018Do the rules in Chapter VIII, in particular in Article 80(1) and (2) and Article 84(1), of [the GDPR] preclude national rules which \u2013 alongside the powers of intervention of the supervisory authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the Regulation and the options for legal redress for data subjects \u2013 empower, on the one hand, competitors and, on the other, associations, entities and chambers entitled under national law, to bring proceedings for breaches of [the GDPR], independently of the infringement of specific rights of individual data subjects and without being mandated to do so by a data subject, against [the person responsible for that infringement] before the civil courts on the basis of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices or breach of a law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions?\u2019 Consideration of the question referred"], "id": "e0b32d28-4331-4f8e-90e8-017a109a407e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["By order of 13 September 2016, the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Austria), before which an appeal was brought, overturned that judgment and referred the case back to the court of first instance for further findings of fact and a new decision to be made. It took the view that, whilst the validity of the choice-of-law clause should be considered according to German law, a clause in general terms and conditions of business is also unfair under that law if it misleads the consumer by giving him the impression that only German law applies to the contract, without informing him that under the Rome I Regulation and the Rome Convention he enjoys legal protection in the form of the mandatory provisions of the law of the country in which he has his habitual residence, namely Austrian law. The court of appeal stated that, even if the choice-of-law clause were valid under German law, in principle, it would have been necessary to consider the other terms of the contract in the light of that law. It held that it would also have been necessary to consider whether mandatory provisions of Austrian law would have precluded the application of German law when assessing the validity of the clauses at issue."], "id": "2000715e-b283-463d-bd96-cdcf5064d3fc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["98. In the third place, the essential role of is apparent from the fact that, while Article 102 TFEU does not provide for an equivalent derogation to that laid down in Article 101(3) TFEU, the Court has established that gains in efficiency can also counteract the harmfulness of abusive conduct, where benefits are passed on to the consumer. Indeed, it is open to a dominant undertaking to provide justification for behaviour that is liable to be caught by the prohibition under Article 102 TFEU by demonstrating, inter alia, that \u2018the exclusionary effect produced may be counterbalanced, outweighed even, by advantages in terms of efficiency that also benefit consumers\u2019. (82)"], "id": "2a622d97-e758-4e9c-a84a-0f6d716a7309", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, in accordance with Article 1 thereof, that directive establishes common rules for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, together with provisions, with a view to improving and integrating competitive electricity markets in the European Union. That directive lays down the rules relating to the organisation and functioning of the electricity sector, open access to the market, the criteria and procedures applicable to calls for tenders and the granting of authorisations and the operation of systems. It also lays down universal service obligations and the rights of electricity consumers and clarifies competition requirements."], "id": "47c6fa51-112c-4ba7-acdb-de8f502329da", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Agrimotion lodged an appeal against that decision before the Oberlandesgericht D\u00fcsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, D\u00fcsseldorf, Germany), claiming that, in accordance with the legal position expressed by the competent German authority, namely the Bundesamt f\u00fcr Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Federal Office for and Food Safety, Germany), and with the practice followed in other Member States, it can rely on the parallel trade permit granted to Bernbeck, since the name of the latter undertaking appears on the new label attached to the plant protection products."], "id": "e838b454-f1bd-45dd-b884-cd6a883fcc2a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u2026 Equivalent operating conditions should be guaranteed to \u2026 players on the market, facilitating new means of payment to reach a broader market and ensuring a high level of in the use of these payment services across the whole of the Union. This should generate efficiencies in the payment system as a whole and lead to more choice and more transparency of payment services while strengthening the trust of consumers in a harmonised payments market."], "id": "47b5e092-aaa2-4422-bc95-6f8c663bbd09", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018This Directive establishes common rules for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, together with provisions, with a view to improving and integrating competitive electricity markets in the Community. It lays down the rules relating to the organisation and functioning of the electricity sector, open access to the market, the criteria and procedures applicable to calls for tenders and the granting of authorisations and the operation of systems. It also lays down universal service obligations and the rights of electricity consumers and clarifies competition requirements.\u2019"], "id": "e9937179-dd24-42d0-8531-980a62804a27", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["New rules should be established to close the regulatory gaps while at the same time providing more legal clarity and ensuring consistent application of the legislative framework across the Union. Equivalent operating conditions should be guaranteed, to existing and new players on the market, enabling new means of payment to reach a broader market, and ensuring a high level of in the use of those payment services across the Union as a whole. \u2026"], "id": "ae4c6847-685d-4019-9e34-e98f1fa2a7a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Regarding the main proceedings, as all parties confirmed at the oral hearing and as, indeed, the referring court has also stated, Hungary has revised its Civil Code so as to avail of the option contained in Article 8 of the 1993 Directive to provide for higher standards of than that required by the terms of the directive itself. However, since Hungary was not required to take such step, it must be found that the obligation imposed on its national courts to declare contractual clauses covered by point 1(q) of the Annex automatically void, is a matter of national law and not of EU law."], "id": "c98de31c-8192-4b01-92fb-83fab3cd7fe5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["By order of 18 October 2017, the S\u0105d Rejonowy w Nowym Tomy\u015blu (District Court, Nowy Tomy\u015bl) declared of its own motion that it did not have jurisdiction and referred the case to the district court within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendant is resident. The former court found that, since the case concerned a contract between a seller or supplier and a consumer, not only was national law to be applied, but also EU law on , inter alia, Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, as well as the case-law of the Court of Justice, specifically the judgment of 4 June 2009, Pannon GSM (C\u2011243/08, EU:C:2009:350), which states that a national court has an obligation to examine of its own motion unfair terms used in contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers, particularly in relation to jurisdiction."], "id": "3a4479ce-1771-431c-8dc9-d83b5580554b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["6 Recitals 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 2011/83 are worded as follows: \u2018(4) In accordance with Article 26(2) TFEU, the internal market is to comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods and services and freedom of establishment are ensured. The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance and off-premises contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of and the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity. (5) \u2026 The full harmonisation of consumer information and the right of withdrawal in distance and off-premises contracts will contribute to a high level of consumer protection and a better functioning of the business-to-consumer internal market. \u2026 (7) Full harmonisation of some key regulatory aspects should considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and traders. Both consumers and traders should be able to rely on a single regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts regulating certain aspects of business-to-consumer contracts across the Union. The effect of such harmonisation should be to eliminate the barriers stemming from the fragmentation of the rules and to complete the internal market in this area. Those barriers can only be eliminated by establishing uniform rules at Union level. Furthermore consumers should enjoy a high common level of protection across the Union.\u2019"], "id": "f087dbfe-f919-4bbc-b2e0-f4b0d87f462c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the reason set out in the contested measures relating to his status as founding partner of Fly Aman, it is apparent from the evidence from the websites \u2018Aliqtisadi\u2019, \u2018Eqtsad News\u2019 and \u20187al.net\u2019 that the applicant is a founding partner of Fly Aman. In addition, the website \u20187al.net\u2019 states that the Syrian Ministry of Trade and has ratified the articles of association of Fly Aman, 10% of which belong to the applicant."], "id": "1f2162d5-6fee-47b7-996e-14b9b8292043", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In order to ensure broad public support for SEPA, a high level of protection for payers is essential, particularly for direct debit transactions. The current and only pan-European direct debit scheme for consumers developed by the [European Payments Council (EPC)] provides for a \u201cno-questions-asked\u201d, unconditional refund right for authorised payments during a period of 8 weeks from the date on which the funds were debited, while that refund right is subject to several conditions under Articles 62 and 63 of Directive 2007/64/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1)]. In the light of the prevailing market situation and of the necessity to ensure a high level of , the impact of those provisions should be assessed in the report that, in accordance with Article 87 of Directive 2007/64/EC, the Commission shall, no later than 1 November 2012, present to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the [European Central Bank] accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for its revision.\u2019"], "id": "1c192daf-da91-4fc1-b780-805195eae4f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Admittedly, as noted by the referring court and VKI, recital 63 of that directive states that \u2018in order to ensure a high level of , Member States should, in the interests of the consumer, be able to maintain or introduce restrictions or prohibitions on unilateral changes in the conditions of a framework contract, for instance if there is no justified reason for such a change\u2019."], "id": "f15df653-a7b7-4b45-be9c-706b7d749e5d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 3 and Article 8 of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 7 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the examination of its own motion of the possible unfairness of the terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which the national court carries out in order to determine whether there is a significant imbalance in the parties\u2019 obligations under that contract, that court may also take into account national provisions ensuring a higher level of than that provided for by that directive."], "id": "ee9b6565-6a1a-4099-b06b-3c2f3263b5cf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["By orders of 29 January 2018, the same court, again on the application of Deutsche Umwelthilfe, declared that another of the penalties contemplated by the order of 27 February 2017 had become payable, and imposed a further suspended financial penalty on the Land of Bavaria, in the amount of EUR 4000. By contrast, that court dismissed, inter alia, an application for the committal to prison of the then Minister for the Environment and for of the Land of Bavaria or, failing that, the Minister-President of the Land. Deutsche Umwelthilfe appealed to the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria) against that decision."], "id": "b9315797-8d3a-4fc2-8efe-1a3e70d2e62d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["It should be noted, in particular, that that joint position, the stated aim of which is to foster and ensure the stability, effectiveness and integrity of the financial markets, expressly provides that the EBA will use the principles that that joint position lays down in order to develop more detailed requirements for the governance and oversight of banking products."], "id": "e387a9c8-0ea6-48a6-942b-d97f974e24eb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["45 In the second place, it should be noted that one of the objectives of Regulation No 1169/2011 is, as is apparent from a combined reading of Article 1(1) and Article 3(1), to ensure a high level of in relation to food information, taking into account the differences in the perception of consumers, by providing a basis for them to make informed choices (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 January 2022, Tesco Stores \u010cR, C\u2011881/19, EU:C:2022:15, paragraphs 43 and 44 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "d315735b-a420-4e5e-9363-b4f209f2bb8c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors means all transmission networks and services should be covered by a single regulatory framework. \u2026 It is necessary to separate the regulation of transmission from the regulation of content. This framework does not therefore cover the content of services delivered over electronic communications networks using electronic communications services, such as broadcasting content, financial services and certain information society services, and is therefore without prejudice to measures taken at [EU] or national level in respect of such services, in compliance with [EU] law, in order to promote cultural and linguistic diversity and to ensure the defence of media pluralism. \u2026 The separation between the regulation of transmission and the regulation of content does not prejudice the taking into account of the links existing between them, in particular in order to guarantee media pluralism, cultural diversity and ."], "id": "c5e696e9-fcaa-46fd-8809-565226faf61b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["However, the Directive does not merely pursue a high level of . The text also aims at maintaining a certain balance between the obligations of the various parties. On the one hand, the Directive determines obligations of sellers in case of nonconforming consumer goods. On the other hand, the Directive lays down obligations which consumers must fulfil in order not to forfeit their rights."], "id": "baf24db0-2b60-4b3e-a166-6e9878d83773", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["7. Member States shall take appropriate measures to protect final customers, and shall, in particular, ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable customers. \u2026 They shall ensure high levels of , particularly with respect to transparency regarding contractual terms and conditions, general information and dispute settlement mechanisms. \u2026 As regards at least household customers those measures shall include those set out in Annex I."], "id": "0a3cb637-fe57-4531-b9bc-3dd1bbb773f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Energy regulators should have the power to issue binding decisions in relation to electricity undertakings and to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties on electricity undertakings which fail to comply with their obligations or to propose that a competent court impose such penalties on them \u2026 Energy regulators should also be granted the power to contribute to ensuring high standards of universal and public service in compliance with market opening, to the protection of vulnerable customers, and to the full effectiveness of measures. \u2026"], "id": "e1426cf3-c1d8-4931-b135-acaf79346169", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The Court based its reasoning, quite clearly, on the fact that the national legislation at issue was inconsistent. It does indeed seem unreasonable to suggest that whilst the objective of and the proper administration of justice does not preclude a litigant from appearing in person, he or she should nonetheless be precluded from procuring the services of a lawyer who has been admitted to practise in another Member State and is subject to all the ethical requirements connected with that professional status."], "id": "9ac0f291-7fd6-42ce-9334-10057fcafb7e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["With respect to the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, GRDF argues, inter alia, that the principle of non-retroactivity of administrative decisions applies when Member State authorities take administrative decisions that fall within the scope of EU law. The principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations requires rules to be clear and precise, and their application foreseeable, and retroactive remedies are inconsistent with this or ."], "id": "dd186359-6599-4366-89d7-24e4c8111ac0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the Court has held that Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 lays down an exception to the mechanism for reviewing the substance of unfair terms, such as that provided for in the system of put in place by that directive, and that that provision must therefore be strictly interpreted (judgment of 20 September 2017, Andriciuc and Others, C\u2011186/16, EU:C:2017:703, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "af9801bc-31b9-4ff7-8162-c22b4c0c70f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Fourthly, the referring court asks, in essence, whether a payment service provider wishing to rely on the derogation provided for in Article 63(1)(a) of Directive 2015/2366 is required to prove that, having regard to the latest available scientific knowledge, the payment instrument cannot be blocked or that its continued use cannot be prevented. That court states that it is in favour of an affirmative answer, with a view to and taking account of the fact that that service provider is responsible for security measures according to recital 91 of Directive 2015/2366. It notes that, in the present case, DenizBank has not disputed VKI\u2019s claim that blocking a card in such a manner is technically feasible."], "id": "b62da672-3630-44a8-9f1d-c65d3db44b7f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["4 Article 1 of that directive reads: \u20181. The purpose of this Directive is the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees in order to ensure a uniform minimum level of in the context of the internal market. 2. For the purpose of this Directive: \u2026 (e) guarantee: shall mean any undertaking by a seller or producer to the consumer, given without extra charge, to reimburse the price paid or to replace, repair or handle consumer goods in any way if they do not meet the specifications set out in the guarantee statement or in the relevant advertising; \u2026\u2019"], "id": "be517a96-682d-425b-9365-095e840f3f0f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court has doubts as to the interpretation of Regulation No 1896/2006 in the light of and the case-law of the Court. In its view, a European order for payment issued without the possible existence of unfair terms having been verified may undermine the requirement of consumer protection enshrined in Article 38 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) TEU."], "id": "685659a6-e287-4af3-b364-504cbb1be4a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["36. In the light of those considerations, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018Do the rules in Chapter VIII, in particular in Article 80(1) and (2) and Article 84(1), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 preclude national rules which \u2013 alongside the powers of intervention of the supervisory authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the Regulation and the options for legal redress for data subjects \u2013 empower, on the one hand, competitors and, on the other, associations, entities and chambers entitled under national law, to bring proceedings for breaches of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, independently of the infringement of specific rights of individual data subjects and without being mandated to do so by a data subject, against the infringer before the civil courts on the basis of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices or breach of a law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions?\u2019"], "id": "0e3d404a-276c-4a0d-af74-3690c5814ae1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["19 In that context, it submits that the Authority could not merely establish that the products at issue could be confused with food products, but also had to demonstrate the danger posed by such confusion. It claims, to that end, that the Consumer Protection Authority had to carry out laboratory analyses and tests in order to determine whether the products at issue could be broken and whether they pose a danger of poisoning when placed in the mouth, sucked or swallowed."], "id": "5a16fb4a-88ed-4d5b-adcf-8d80d807cbdb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the interest in bringing proceedings and, therefore, the procedural issues which depend on the interest pursuant to which an action is brought, such as locus standi or admissibility of the action, the legal position of a public authority is thus comparable to that of a association. Such an association can also bring a cessation action in the absence of any interest of its own."], "id": "9ca2f3e7-7b06-4886-90be-e697212b06a4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the applicant\u2019s argument that Sabra Maritime Agency\u2019s licence was cancelled following its nationalisation, that company having subsequently become dormant and finally been removed from the commercial register, it should be noted that the applicant produced a letter from the Director of Internal Trade and of Tartus of 28 September 2020 stating that certain company names do not appear in the commercial register of Tartus. These are, in particular, the following company names: Sabra Group, Sabra Maritime Agency and Yass Marine."], "id": "59156e26-b6e7-436f-b763-54fc8c416636", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["32 The referring court, recalling the Court\u2019s case-law governing the procedural autonomy of the Member States in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the substantive law of the European Union, that on the duties of the national courts in the area of and the case-law on the obligation to override the force of res judicata in certain circumstances, is uncertain, in the dispute before it, as to whether the terms in the guarantee contracts, at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between ZW and BDB and between ZW and the other creditors, on the basis of which the orders for payment were issued, were unfair."], "id": "c831d50a-0260-4c50-844f-7497cd1366a8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In those circumstances, the referring court has doubts as to whether a national provision such as Article 339(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is consistent with the standard of required by Directive 93/13/EEC, in particular, as regards the court\u2019s obligation to examine of its own motion whether terms of a contract concluded with a consumer are unfair."], "id": "e4a2cf6f-5a02-4cba-818a-552ff36d6227", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Directive 93/13 has already generated much case-law, both in this Court and in the national courts. While that directive has clearly augmented a regime of in that it allows courts to declare that contractual terms which have been drawn up for general use by the supplier or producer to be unfair (and, hence, unenforceable), Article 4(2) of that directive provides, however, for two important exceptions to this regime, namely, where the allegedly unfair term relates either to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract or, the adequacy of the price or remuneration in respect of the goods and services. The scope of those exceptions is at the heart of these preliminary references, with one of the principal questions (in Case C\u201184/19) being whether non-interest charges paid by a bank customer in respect of a loan agreement fall within the scope of either of those exceptions."], "id": "3d11e20d-c7f2-4e56-98a7-4d31c1980740", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["27 Under Paragraph 2 of the Gesetz \u00fcber Unterlassungsklagen bei Verbraucherrechts- und anderen Verst\u00f6\u00dfen (Unterlassungsklagengesetz \u2013 UKlaG) (Law on injunctions against infringements of consumer law and other infringements) of 26 November 2001 (BGBl. 2001 I, p. 3138), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (\u2018the Law on Injunctions\u2019): \u2018(1) Any person who infringes rules in place to protect consumers (consumer protection laws), other than in the application or recommendation of general terms and conditions, may be subject to an order to cease and desist or a prohibition order in the interest of . \u2026 (2) For the purposes of this provision, \u201cconsumer protection laws\u201d means, in particular: \u2026 11. the rules defining lawfulness (a) of the collection of personal data of a consumer by an undertaking or (b) the processing or use of personal data which have been collected by a business in relation to a consumer, where the data are collected, processed or used for the purposes of publicity, market and opinion research, use by an information agency, a personality and usage profile establishment, of any other data business or for similar commercial purposes.\u2019"], "id": "a7576068-7ffa-498e-8f12-a0b1c9110735", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["The request has been made in proceedings between Natumi GmbH and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), represented by the Landesamt f\u00fcr Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen (Nature, Environment and Agency of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), concerning the contested use of a non-organic product, specifically the alga lithotamn (Lithothamnium calcareum), in processing food and the use of indications referring to the organic production method and to the presence of calcium in the labelling of the processed food in question."], "id": "b662bd9f-416d-44a3-a9b1-b69caee70cca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["On the contrary, the effective exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 93/13 may be ensured where the seller or supplier is, in principle, required to prove to the court that its pre-contractual and contractual obligations, relating in particular to the requirement of transparency of contractual terms, as resulting in particular from Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, have been fulfilled. may thus be ensured, without disproportionately interfering with the right of the seller or supplier to a fair trial (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 December 2014, CA Consumer Finance, C\u2011449/13, EU:C:2014:2464, paragraph 28)."], "id": "f10b76ac-1e95-436d-be9f-dec4780157ff", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, as regards the objectives pursued by Directive 2009/72, it should be noted that it follows from recitals 37, 42, 51 and 54 of that directive as well as from Article 1 thereof that it aims to grant energy regulators the power to ensure the full effectiveness of measures, to ensure that all Union industry and commerce and all citizens of the Union enjoy high levels of consumer protection and have access to dispute settlement mechanisms, to put consumer interests at the heart of the directive, to have that regulatory authorities, where the Member State confers on them that competence, enforce the consumer rights of electricity consumers as well as to implement effective means of dispute settlement for all consumers."], "id": "8d94b76a-ea25-46f9-a0ce-8bb01813a182", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Consumer interests should be at the heart of this Directive and quality of service should be a central responsibility of electricity undertakings. Existing rights of consumers need to be strengthened and guaranteed, and should include greater transparency. should ensure that all consumers in the wider remit of the [European Union] benefit from a competitive market. Consumer rights should be enforced by Member States or, where a Member State has so provided, the regulatory authorities."], "id": "ee6f0cb0-faff-48af-bdc6-2b5e7d0d4ef8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["As I have stated in point 29 of this Opinion, the action brought by the applicant in the main proceedings is, in principle, subject to the objective limitation period of three years. That period appears to have already expired in the present case. In order for that action not to be time-barred, that period would have to be regarded as unenforceable against the applicant in the main proceedings. Such unenforceability may be the consequence of the non-compliance of that period with EU law. In that context, the referring court states that, as opposed to the limitation period of 10 years by means of which Slovak courts ensure in accordance with the case-law stemming from the judgment in Guti\u00e9rrez Naranjo and Others, the three-year period is disadvantageous to the consumer and restricts his rights, sometimes even depriving him of those rights. The referring court thus appears to consider that the objective limitation period of three years may render it impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred on consumers by EU law or that, at the very least, that period creates a non-negligible risk of a consumer being deterred from properly defending his rights before the court before which proceedings have been brought by the seller or supplier."], "id": "7c1aa0ab-1042-4f6d-9d02-2666d6cbf814", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["However, the Court has previously held that is not absolute (judgments of 21 December 2016, Guti\u00e9rrez Naranjo and Others, C\u2011154/15, C\u2011307/15 and C\u2011308/15, EU:C:2016:980, paragraph 68) and that, in the interests of legal certainty it is compatible with EU law to lay down reasonable time limits for bringing proceedings (judgments of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, C\u201140/08, EU:C:2009:615, paragraph 41, and of 21 December 2016, Guti\u00e9rrez Naranjo and Others, C\u2011154/15, C\u2011307/15 and C\u2011308/15, EU:C:2016:980, paragraph 69)."], "id": "d27af48d-0245-4a93-86c7-711940403523", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["Within the European Parliament, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and delivered an opinion in accordance with which the directive had to make reference to the four main sources of external costs from transport described in the Green Paper, namely congestion, air pollution, noise and accidents. However, the Parliament did not follow that opinion and even proposed to delete any provision seeking to include external costs as it awaited further guidance on that subject."], "id": "9a2e49f8-5fc2-4888-98d0-38b987ce0aa6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The fact that Member States may make actions for restitution subject to limitation periods does not mean that their freedom of action in that regard is unlimited. The limitation rules must comply with the requirements of the principle of effectiveness. The case-law of the Court provides several clarifications regarding compliance with that principle as regards the limitation periods for actions relating to . Having recently had the opportunity to analyse that case-law in a context similar to that of the present case, I shall confine myself to giving a summary of the conclusions which may be drawn from it."], "id": "74739612-7ff7-4123-b6bf-4eb077ff2369", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["86. The interest of professionals seems to me to be less important, however, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, since the standards at issue relate to areas, more specifically those of health and , where, as I emphasised in point 31 of this Opinion, citizens are much more likely to seek to enforce their rights. In that case, the EU institutions must, in my view, take very particular care to ensure that citizens have as wide an access as possible to the content of those standards."], "id": "2983939b-79d8-4654-b01e-29e4943189c6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the full harmonisation achieved by Directive 2008/48 in certain areas of consumer credit, the Member States cannot include new categories of costs which are not compatible with the areas harmonised by that directive. By the method of calculating the maximum amount of the \u2018total cost of the contract excluding interest\u2019, the Polish legislature allowed creditors to impose on consumers financial charges higher than those provided for in Article 3(g) of that directive. That legislation is therefore liable to undermine , contrary to the intentions of the national legislature."], "id": "3118b773-af38-4424-a276-8cb64e68818a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["83 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 80(2) of the GDPR must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a association to bring legal proceedings, in the absence of a mandate conferred on it for that purpose and independently of the infringement of specific rights of the data subjects, against the person allegedly responsible for an infringement of the laws protecting personal data, on the basis of the infringement of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, a breach of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions, where the data processing concerned is liable to affect the rights that identified or identifiable natural persons derive from that regulation. Costs"], "id": "dded0122-e1b9-497f-a473-58663babc598", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Must the provisions of [Directive 93/93], in particular Article 3(1) of that directive, and the principles of EU law concerning and the balance between contracting parties be interpreted as precluding the introduction into national law of the concept of \u201cmaximum non-interest credit costs\u201d and the mathematical formula for calculating those costs set out in Article 5(1)(6)(a), in conjunction with Article 36a, of [the Law on Consumer Credit], which allow the costs of the business activity of a seller or supplier to be included in the costs related to a credit agreement that are to be borne by the consumer (the total costs of the credit)?\u2019"], "id": "c6c8b2ff-9d30-4b4e-8832-f678d92e6d5a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The obligation to provide prior information plays a central role in the general scheme of the directive. As the Court has previously held with regard to in the context of contracts negotiated away from business premises, it is the prerequisite for making the consumer, as the weaker party, fully aware of his rights. The obligation to provide information thus acts as an essential guarantee of the effective exercise of the consumer\u2019s rights, including his right to withdraw, and for that reason is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of the European Union\u2019s consumer protection legislation."], "id": "9a5b17c2-b665-4252-bce1-8a1ef10fb066", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it acknowledges that Article 3(8) of Directive 2009/72 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2009/73 enable Member States to adopt measures, particularly with a view to combating energy poverty. It submits however that this is subject to the proviso that such measures do not impede the proper functioning of the market, which, amongst other things, requires compliance with the \u2018guiding principle for network access pricing\u2019."], "id": "b53977fc-9232-422d-a890-57e4e07ba6fa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 93/13/EEC \u2014 Unfair terms in consumer contracts \u2014 Foreign currency loans \u2014 Term on exchange rate \u2014 Article 1(2) \u2014 Term reflecting a general principle established by law \u2014 Article 6(1) \u2014 Legal consequences \u2014 Removal of unfair term \u2014 Contract incapable of continuing in existence without unfair term \u2014 Powers of national court)"], "id": "f4a1c377-300a-4264-9730-aa7611c362b2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, the Court has recognised that is not absolute and that Union law does not require a national court to disapply domestic procedural rules conferring finality on a decision, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy an infringement of a provision, regardless of its nature, contained in Directive 93/13. Indeed, the Court has emphasised the importance, both for the Union legal order and the national legal systems, of the principle of res judicata, and that, in order to ensure stability of the law and legal relations as well as the sound administration of justice, judicial decisions which have become definitive after all rights of appeal have been exhausted or after expiry of the time limits provided to exercise those rights can no longer be called into question."], "id": "661a607b-7e6c-4765-aa13-123408705555", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court refers to several persons, namely, at the level of the Land, the Minister-President and the Minister for the Environment and , and at the level of the administrative region of Upper Bavaria, the President and Vice-President of the government. It adds that, as a precaution, it would be appropriate to extend the measure to include managerial staff of the Land and the administrative region of Upper Bavaria, as the responsible organs of the Land have parliamentary immunity and this, unless it was withdrawn, would defeat a committal order."], "id": "fd7ed8a9-8510-4dcd-ae1c-7d53ed608f66", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, in the judgment of 24 March 2011, Commission v Spain (C\u2011400/08, EU:C:2011:172, paragraphs 110 and 111), the Court held, in the context of the assessment of a potential justification of an infringement of the freedom of establishment by the national legislation at issue, that the establishment of a committee comprising, inter alia, representatives of the trade sector, responsible for drawing up a report before any decision on the issuing or refusal of a permit was taken, was not such as to achieve the objectives relating to town and country planning, environmental protection or . The only sectoral interest represented in that committee was that of the existing local trade and, therefore, potential competitors of the applicant for a commercial operating permit."], "id": "95c7cc78-e492-4058-a41d-439fede11e41", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["See the successive versions of Paragraph 165a of the VersVG cited in points 8 and 9 above. Paragraph 165a of the VersVG was repealed on 31 December 2018 by the Gesetz zur \u00c4nderung des Versicherungsvertragsgesetzes, des Konsumentenschutzgesetzes und des Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetzes 2018 (Law amending the Law on insurance contracts, the Law on and the Law on insurance supervision 2018; BGBl. I No 51/2018). Since 1 January 2019, Paragraph 5c(4) of the VersVG now provides that cancellation is to be declared \u2018in written form\u2019."], "id": "0599e4be-5a2d-4a15-ad7d-8daa60cff96d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["142. If that is so, it must be recalled that the purpose of Directive 1999/44 is, as recital 1 thereof states, to ensure a high level of . In particular, Article 2(1) of that directive obliges the seller to deliver goods to the consumer which are in conformity with the contract of sale. (74) Recital 8 of the directive explains that, in order to facilitate the application of the principle of conformity with the contract, it is useful to introduce a rebuttable presumption of conformity with the contract covering the most common situations, and that, in the absence of specific contractual terms, as well as where the minimum protection clause is applied, the elements mentioned in that presumption may be used to determine the lack of conformity of the goods with the contract."], "id": "66f96f9b-d5a8-4e97-a5cb-5b885528ece0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the new part of the reasons contained in the 2020 maintaining acts, it is apparent from the articles from the websites \u2018Eqtsad News\u2019 and \u2018Aliqtisadi\u2019 taken from document WK 3600/2020 REV 1, that the applicant is, respectively, a founding member and a member of the board of Assas lil-Hadid. In that regard, it should be noted that, as the applicant submits, the summaries of the articles from those websites produced by the Council indicate the name \u2018Asas Iron Company\u2019 instead of \u2018Assas lil-Hadid\u2019. It is, however, the same company. The first name is the English translation of the second name, which corresponds to the entity\u2019s Arabic name. Asas Iron Company\u2019s articles of association, ratified by the representative of its founders and by the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and , as well as its registration certificate of 6 November 2019, produced by the applicant, confirm that the two names correspond."], "id": "25a05b70-4a1b-44e6-863b-50c78a5c8e76", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Regarding the context, since Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 lays down exceptions to the assessment of unfair terms, such as that provided for in the system of put in place by that directive, that provision must be strictly interpreted. Since the wording of Article 4(2) draws no distinction as to whether the price or the remuneration for the service in question was expressed as either a fixed charge or interest, such an interpretation would not justify the exclusion of contractual clauses providing for the payment of charges other than interest from the scope of that provision."], "id": "a1531e5d-b19f-4ee8-9e6e-f645331c0381", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Only when the legislation on food labelling was simplified and codified in a single instrument, namely Regulation No 1169/2011, did the EU legislature assert that that legislation \u2018both serve[d] the interests of the internal market by simplifying the law, ensuring legal certainty and reducing administrative burden, and benefit[ed] citizens by requiring clear, comprehensible and legible labelling of foods\u2019. The subject matter of that regulation was defined as, inter alia, the provision of \u2018the basis for the assurance of a high level of in relation to food information \u2026\u2019 and the establishment of \u2018the means to guarantee the right of consumers to information and procedures for the provision of food information\u2019. In that context, Article 3(1) of the regulation states that one of the \u2018general objectives\u2019 of the legislation is to ensure \u2018a high level of protection of consumers\u2019 health and interests by providing a basis for final consumers to make informed choices and to make safe use of food, with particular regard to health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations\u2019."], "id": "2b1d4a0e-1525-4acd-bef2-4a803be9f6ab", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["It will therefore be for the national court to ascertain whether there are overriding reasons relating to the public interest justifying the authorisation scheme for taxi dispatching services. I would only point out that that scheme concerns an intermediation service on a market which is already subject to an authorisation scheme, namely that for the provision of taxi transport services. It therefore appears that, for example, the public interest in is already satisfied. Thus, the task of the national court will be to ascertain what other overriding reasons are capable of justifying that additional authorisation scheme."], "id": "9f178c99-bef8-41c0-a504-461b2890e0b4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["76 As the Advocate General observed in point 76 of his Opinion, the preventive function of actions brought by associations, such as the Federal Union, could not be guaranteed if the representative action provided for in Article 80(2) of the GDPR allowed only the infringement of the rights of a person individually and specifically affected by that infringement to be invoked."], "id": "136d7e8f-68c6-4b3c-9e63-34f28d917880", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["46 First, such information is, as regards , necessary for consumers not to be misled by unclear, ambiguous or incomplete information on the various guarantees which exist and their relationship, and to ensure, in particular, that they are able to understand that the manufacturer\u2019s commercial guarantee does not originate from the trader and whether it may, where appropriate, be exercised through the trader. Secondly, such an information requirement cannot be regarded as constituting a disproportionate burden for the trader, since the trader itself decides, in full knowledge of the facts, to draw the consumer\u2019s attention to the guarantee and intends to derive a competitive advantage from it."], "id": "c7ab54b0-70db-4f8d-8720-60f49473b83d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["63. However, the conclusion must be different if national time bars or limitation periods lead to an asymmetry of the possibilities for bringing an action, that is to say if a creditor can assert his payment claims for longer than the consumer can assert the invalidity of the contract. Thus, a court must examine the unfairness of a term of its own motion despite the expiry of the time limit, as otherwise the seller or supplier may circumvent the intended by the Unfair Contract Terms Directive by simply waiting for the time limit to expire before bringing an action to enforce his unfair terms. (45)"], "id": "cd18c359-b9bb-4322-bd47-e4226ca178c5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Paragraph 106(2) of the Electricity Market Law provides that the Energiavirasto is responsible for monitoring compliance with that law and the legal and administrative provisions issued on the basis thereof, as well as compliance with the approval decisions issued on the basis of that law. Under that provision, supervision is regulated separately in the Supervision Law. Pursuant to Paragraph 106(4) of the Electricity Market Law, the Kuluttaja-asiamies (Consumer Ombudsman, Finland) monitors the legality of clauses of the contracts referred to in Chapter 13 of the Electricity Market Law (electricity contracts) from the perspective of ."], "id": "41ea4e2f-ca64-4464-b9b7-210ee8c8c481", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3 and Article 8 of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 7 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the examination of its own motion of the possible unfairness of the terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which the national court carries out in order to determine whether there is a significant imbalance in the parties\u2019 obligations under that contract, that court may also take into account national provisions ensuring a higher level of than that provided for by that directive."], "id": "b1913e4e-580e-4a07-a0a1-b806c306d9eb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court considers that it is possible to adopt an interpretation which makes it possible to balance the principle of a high level of and the principle of legal certainty. In its view, the date on which the contract at issue comes to an end, that is to say, when the consumer is released from any obligation vis-\u00e0-vis the seller or supplier and should therefore no longer be regarded as being in a weak position vis-\u00e0-vis that seller or supplier, is a date, determined objectively, on which the consumer must or should have been aware of the unfairness of the term or terms of that contract and from which the three-year limitation period to bring an action of a pecuniary nature, including an action for reimbursement, starts to run."], "id": "62a63cda-6f17-457f-a495-93158d16aae4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Under point 13 of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 6 of the Supervision Law, the Energiavirasto has the task of contributing, in its activity as the national regulatory authority within the meaning of the EU legal provisions concerning the electricity and natural gas sectors, to ensuring efficiency and enforcement of measures concerning the electricity and natural gas markets."], "id": "ae1451b2-2dcb-4e55-955c-8e293b88dcea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Z\u00fcrich, on the other hand, takes the view that, in the present case, the policy holder was correctly informed of its right of cancellation and that merely citing a requirement for that right to be exercised in writing \u2013 which, moreover, is beneficial to the policy holder itself and serves the principle of legal certainty \u2013 does not make the information incorrect. In any event, where the policy holder is a trader, the cancellation period expires entirely irrespective of whether information has been provided in that respect. The spirit and purpose of the right of cancellation provided for by EU law relate only to ."], "id": "4bfe1d55-2ac8-4752-8108-1fb16c5f3068", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The ACPR, the French and Polish Governments and the EBA take the opposite view. According to the ACPR, the French Government and the EBA, the EBA is entitled to adopt guidelines beyond the strict scope of the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1093/2010 because Article 1(3) thereof extends the EBA\u2019s powers to issues not covered by those acts. In any case, product governance and corporate governance are interrelated so that the contested guidelines cannot be considered to be outside the scope of the EBA\u2019s competence. According to the same intervening parties, as well as the Polish Government, the EBA\u2019s action is also lawful because Regulation No 1093/2010 expressly aims to provide . The EBA had the power to adopt the contested guidelines in as much as they serve that objective. Thus, according to the ACPR and the EBA, there should simply be a general assessment of the EBA\u2019s power to adopt guidelines. Such a general assessment would lead to the conclusion that the EBA had the power to issue the contested guidelines."], "id": "b9e61150-560b-4518-a66f-b6ccd95e1127", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Lastly, in order to guarantee extensive , in Article 3(g) of that directive the EU legislature broadly defines the \u2018total cost of the credit to the consumer\u2019 as covering all the costs, including interest, commissions, taxes and any other kind of fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement and which are known to the creditor, except for notarial costs (judgment of 26 March 2020, Mikrokasa and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamkni\u0119ty, C\u2011779/18, EU:C:2020:236, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "c8cb8f10-f1a4-4193-8f51-5ef2aa4a79dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["On the other hand, according to the settled case-law of the Court, the right to property, which is guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter, is not an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 2003, Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood, C\u201120/00 and C\u201164/00, EU:C:2003:397, paragraph 68). In the context of the case in the main proceedings, the right to property must be reconciled with Article 38 of the Charter, which, like Article 168(4)(b) TFEU, seeks to ensure a high level of in EU policies, including the protection of public health."], "id": "1352a7b2-8211-4bfd-8885-94dca5ea2f60", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["47 In that regard, the Court has held that, in the absence of specific EU legislation in this area, the rules implementing , provided for in Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, are a matter for the domestic legal order of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the latter. However, those rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) nor may they be framed in such a way as to make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness). It follows that the award of the costs of judicial proceedings before the national courts falls within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (see judgment of 16 July 2020, Caixabank and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, C\u2011224/19 and C\u2011259/19, EU:C:2020:578, paragraphs 83 and 95 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1fce1895-93a0-4c97-85d6-20442391c4e0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["33 Moreover, the Court has recognised that is not absolute. In particular, it has held that EU law does not require a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a decision, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy an infringement of a provision, regardless of its nature, contained in Directive 93/13 (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, C\u201140/08, EU:C:2009:615, paragraph 37, and of 21 December 2016, Guti\u00e9rrez Naranjo and Others, C\u2011154/15, C\u2011307/15 and C\u2011308/15, EU:C:2016:980, paragraph 68), subject, however, in accordance with the case-law recalled in paragraph 22 above, to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness."], "id": "c4443048-cbfc-4362-b42f-e6671422a53d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2008/48/EC \u2014 Pre-contractual obligations \u2014 Article 5(6) \u2014 Obligation on the creditor to seek to establish the credit most suitable \u2014 Article 8(1) \u2014 Obligation on the creditor to refrain from concluding the loan agreement if there are doubts over the creditworthiness of the consumer \u2014 Obligation on the creditor to assess the expediency of the credit)"], "id": "7453b6e1-600c-490b-b2a6-c56fa2d31c71", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["50. The KBA also states that that regulation is based on Article 95 EC (now Article 114 TFEU), which concerns measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. However, Article 95(3) EC provides that the Commission, in its proposals concerning health, safety, environmental protection and , will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Consequently, the fact that that regulation is not founded on a specific legal basis relating to the environment, namely Article 175 EC, is not such as to exclude the link between that regulation and environmental law."], "id": "744dd5f0-a766-4d00-be90-dff0d8d4c928", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["In that connection, first, I would point out that, from the perspective of the informative purpose, given the arbitrary and variable nature of the calculation of the abovementioned nutritional values, it is difficult to determine how, in the present case, the presentation of repeated nutrition information relating to the food after preparation would be useful to the consumer, particularly since the mandatory nutrition declaration would in fact be relegated to of secondary significance visually. Furthermore, in order to ensure a high level of in relation to information, taking into account the differences in the perception of consumers, as the Court has observed, food information must be correct, neutral and objective. That would not, however, be the case if the manufacturers of foods which can be prepared in different ways were to choose the way which best suits them, in particular that which gives the lowest energy value. Adopting such an approach would be neither neutral nor objective."], "id": "4c0e1cd0-7c12-4b53-9572-90adc534102c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 93/13/EEC \u2013 Unfair terms in consumer contracts \u2013 Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 6(1) \u2013 Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms \u2013 Term fixing in advance the creditor\u2019s potential advantage in the event of termination of the contract \u2013 Significant imbalance in the parties\u2019 rights and obligations under the contract \u2013 Date on which the imbalance must be assessed \u2013 Finding that a term is unfair \u2013 Consequences \u2013 Replacement of an unfair term with a supplementary provision of national law)"], "id": "c0665e55-5b4b-4fab-9e06-ba3016915a18", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Second, as the Directive is a minimum harmonisation measure and leaves some leeway to Member States, the latter may in their national provisions determine the place where goods must be made available to be brought into conformity, bearing in mind the requirements posed by Article 3(3). Moreover, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Directive, Member States may always adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions to ensure a higher level of . Thus, in the interest of legal certainty, Member States may enact specific rules for certain categories of goods."], "id": "54cc7367-3912-41b2-92bc-e22024dd6725", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["As noted by the Advocate General in point 59 of his Opinion, to hold that proceedings brought by a public authority are outside the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012 merely because of the use by that authority of evidence gathered by virtue of its public powers would undermine the practical effectiveness of one of the models of implementation of envisaged by the EU legislature. In that model, in contrast to the one in which it is the administrative authority itself that determines the consequences that are to follow from an infringement, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings the public authority is assigned the task of defending the interests of consumers before the courts."], "id": "93847f8e-757b-4baa-b82f-b2b0a32aa210", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["Consumer interests should be at the heart of this Directive and quality of service should be a central responsibility of electricity undertakings. Existing rights of consumers need to be strengthened and guaranteed, and should include greater transparency. should ensure that all consumers in the wider remit of the Community benefit from a competitive market. Consumer rights should be enforced by Member States or, where a Member State has so provided, the regulatory authorities."], "id": "3f492b68-6632-474b-8b0e-0e950eab1b59", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["48 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, as is apparent, in particular, from paragraph 36 and from paragraphs 41 to 44 above, the dispute in the main proceedings is between a association, such as the Federal Union, and Meta Platforms Ireland and concerns the question whether such an association may bring proceedings against that company in the absence of a mandate granted to it for that purpose and independently of the infringement of specific rights of the data subjects."], "id": "f9a2083e-ec8d-4104-a04d-8809d2dcbb89", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["First, he argues that, by its questions, the referring court is seeking to ascertain whether or not the time limit laid down by the national legislation for bringing proceedings before that court has been complied with. A question referred for a preliminary ruling must concern the interpretation of EU law rather than aspects relating to national law. Secondly, the applicant states that to limit the effects of restitution following a finding that a contractual term is unfair would be contrary to the rationale on which is based."], "id": "4e6dd066-57d8-4fc6-8484-fa2d2be15e58", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["It should be stated, by way of preliminary point, that by that question that court is referring to the participation in the abovementioned procedures of representatives of the Ministry of the Economy and the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic. Subject to the verifications to be carried out by the referring court, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the participation of the Ministry of the Environment relates only to tariff regulation procedures in connection with the production and supply of drinking water. Thus, in such a case, the provisions of Directive 2009/72, which apply, in particular, to the common rules on the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, and also to provisions relating to , with the aim of improving and integrating competitive markets for electricity in the European Union, should not apply to such participation."], "id": "852b7e7a-20bc-43f4-a98e-f3a3524ed080", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["It should also be pointed out that it follows from Article 4 of Directive 2011/83 that the level of ensured by national provisions as provided for by Member States cannot diverge from the level laid down in that directive unless otherwise provided for by that directive. In that regard, the Court has held that Article 21 of that directive does not constitute an exception to the Member States\u2019 obligation not to deviate from the level of protection laid down by that directive (judgment of 13 September 2018, Starman, C\u2011332/17, EU:C:2018:721, paragraph 28)."], "id": "6d84a2d4-d875-441e-9baf-dfb6595573fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["According to the referring court, those national provisions are intended to ensure , in that the consumer cannot be required, in the event of early termination of the term of a loan agreement which he or she has concluded with a seller or supplier, to pay ordinary interest, since the payment of default interest and any penalties provided for in that agreement and, where appropriate, the payment of compensation, cover the harm actually suffered by that seller or supplier."], "id": "9d7f38e8-1310-4287-88fe-d33f5a29f8e2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer Protection", "masked_sentences": ["In the third place, as regards Riamar Shipping, which, according to the applicant, is dissolved, it should be noted that, according to Resolution No 77 of the Director of Internal Trade and of Tartus of 20 November 2018, produced by the applicant, the reference to \u2018Abdulkader Sabra & Co (RIAMAR SHIPPING)\u2019, the object of which relates to maritime transport, was removed from the commercial register on account, inter alia, of its dissolution by agreement between its members of 27 June 2018. Furthermore, it is apparent from that resolution that Riamar Shipping is the trade name of Abdulkader Sabra & Co. Accordingly, it must be concluded that Abdulkader Sabra & Co, the company name corresponding to the trade name of Riamar Shipping, has in fact been dissolved."], "id": "0e017a81-1cf3-49a0-b380-8519240ab404", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 93/13/CEE \u2014 Unfair terms in consumer contracts \u2014 Article 3(1) and (3) \u2014 Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC \u2014 Point 1(m) and (q) \u2014 Loan agreement secured by a mortgage \u2014 Notarial instrument \u2014 Affixation of the enforcement clause by a notary \u2014 Reversal of the burden of proof \u2014 Article 5(1) \u2014 Plain and intelligible drafting)"], "id": "b31dd40c-5b9c-4a9f-8d82-39d9113a4769", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["61 In this instance, as was confirmed by the German Government at the hearing in the present case, the German legislature did not adopt, following the entry into force of the GDPR, particular provisions specifically designed to implement Article 80(2) of that regulation in its national law. The national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in order to transpose Directive 2009/22, already allows associations to bring legal proceedings against the person allegedly responsible for an infringement of the laws protecting personal data. That government observes, moreover, that, in its judgment of 29 July 2019, Fashion ID (C\u201140/17, EU:C:2019:629), concerning the interpretation of the provisions of Directive 95/46, the Court held that those provisions do not preclude that national legislation."], "id": "6ee8dd66-ad6a-4181-8a79-36647384ff05", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court notes, first of all, that the objective limitation period of three years begins to run and expires even though the injured consumer was not aware of the unfair or unlawful nature of the contractual term giving rise to the unjust enrichment. In its view, such a national rule is likely to infringe the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter and to be incompatible with the case-law of the Court relating to , laid down, in particular, by Directive 93/13 and Directive 2008/48."], "id": "6b540860-cb3d-463b-9332-8c5f1a76d555", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["The requirement set out in Article 19(5), namely that the information referred to in Article 19(1)(b) to (d) and (f) and in Article 19(2) to (4) be provided in the language laid down by the law of the Member State in which the product is made available to the end user, ensures a high level of . The protection of human health cannot be comprehensively ensured unless consumers are fully informed about and understand, inter alia, the information about the function of the cosmetic product concerned and the particular precautions to be observed in use. The information which producers or distributors of the cosmetic products covered by Regulation No 1223/2009 are obliged to put on the product\u2019s container and packaging, save where it can be effectively conveyed by the use of pictogrammes or signs other than words, will be of no practical use unless it is provided in a language which can be understood by the persons for whom it is intended (see, by analogy, judgment of 13 September 2001, Schwarzkopf, C\u2011169/99, EU:C:2001:439, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "264aadbb-ce11-4a53-912c-398ab615e520", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["21. The referring court has doubts, however, as to whether the appellate court was correct to consider that the Federation\u2019s action was admissible. It questions whether a association, such as the Federation, still has, since the entry into force of Regulation 2016/679, standing to bring proceedings, by lodging an action before the civil courts, against infringements of that regulation, independently of an actual infringement of the rights of individual data subjects and without being mandated by them, by invoking an infringement of the law within the meaning of Paragraph 3a of the UWG, infringement of a law on consumer protection within the meaning of point 11 of the first sentence of Paragraph 2(2) of the UKlaG or even the use of a general term or condition that is invalid in application of Paragraph 1 of the UKlaG."], "id": "887d5d09-fdec-4989-88e6-ecdc9fb5b8a2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 1, 4, 7 and 8 of Regulation No 261/2004 read as follows: \u2018(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of in general. \u2026 (4) The Community should therefore raise the standards of protection set by that Regulation both to strengthen the rights of passengers and to ensure that air carriers operate under harmonised conditions in a liberalised market. \u2026 (7) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis. (8) This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.\u2019"], "id": "eee1fa14-76c9-4aef-9e0e-38030caacd20", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 1999/44/EC \u2014 Sale of consumer goods \u2014 Rights of the consumer \u2014 Lack of conformity of the goods delivered \u2014 Subsequent bringing into conformity of the goods \u2014 Obligations of the seller \u2014 Determination of the place where the goods have to be made available for repair or replacement (place of subsequent performance) \u2014 Meaning of \u2018significant inconvenience to the consumer\u2019 \u2014 Meaning of \u2018to repair free of charge\u2019 \u2014 Right to have the contract rescinded)"], "id": "5cb7fdb0-9e20-4f41-8b12-7f297eb52251", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "consumer protection", "masked_sentences": ["As indicated by certain provisions and recitals to Directive 2009/72, the NRAs play a collaborative role with other competent authorities in ensuring the effectiveness and enforcement of the measures set out in that directive, which may include complaint handling. Under Article 3(13) of Directive 2009/72, \u2018Member States shall ensure that an independent mechanism such as an energy ombudsman or a consumer body is in place in order to ensure efficient treatment of complaints and out-of-court dispute settlements\u2019. It may be inferred from the wording \u2018such as\u2019 in that provision that the choice of the competent authority for handling consumer complaints and dispute settlement falls within the discretion of the Member States. The Finnish Government\u2019s observations concerning the legislative history of Directive 2009/72, whereby the European Parliament\u2019s proposed amendments regarding the handling of consumer complaints by NRAs were moved from what is now Article 37 to Article 3 of Directive 2009/72, further support this point."], "id": "3773a389-b5ca-4fe4-9164-999f73ad5c60", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["This reference for a preliminary ruling is a further opportunity for the Court to examine the balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the need for pharmaceutical companies to promote the goods they produce and, on the other, the need for health-care professionals, in this case basically doctors and pharmacists, to have objective information about the products they are to prescribe or supply. Such a balance must be struck, furthermore, bearing in mind the compelling requirement to safeguard and protect ."], "id": "f5d2abfd-8762-4682-ae8b-70aae682c696", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["17. VL was employed as a psychologist at the Szpital Kliniczny im. dr. J. Babi\u0144skiego, Samodzielny Publiczny Zak\u0142ad Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie (Dr J. Babi\u0144ski Clinical Hospital, Independent Care Institution in Krak\u00f3w; \u2018the Hospital\u2019), most recently from 3 October 2011 to 30 September 2016. On 8 December 2011, VL obtained a certificate attesting to a moderate, permanent disability, which she submitted to her employer on 21 December 2011."], "id": "3e9db385-bda4-42ec-a60b-a1c61d21684b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["5 Recital 54 of Regulation No 1306/2013 states: \u2018That cross-compliance system incorporates in the CAP basic standards concerning the environment, climate change, good agricultural and environmental condition of land, , animal health, plant health and animal welfare. Cross-compliance aims to contribute to the development of sustainable agriculture through better awareness on the part of beneficiaries of the need to respect those basic standards. It aims also to contribute to make the CAP more compatible with the expectation of society through improving consistency of that policy with the environment, public health, animal health, plant health and animal welfare policies. The cross-compliance system forms an integral part of the CAP and should therefore be maintained. Its scope, however, which consists so far in separate lists of statutory management requirements and standards of good agricultural and environmental condition of land should be streamlined so that consistency of the cross-compliance system is ensured and made more visible. For this purpose, the requirements and standards should be organised in a single list and grouped by areas and issues. \u2026\u2019"], "id": "8ffc0283-5d97-4319-8aef-19e67e7ed1c6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Regulation in the area of medicinal products aims at reconciling a variety of goals. The first of these is quite obviously the safeguarding of , but it is also vital to create incentives to enable pharmaceutical companies to carry out much needed research into new medicinal products. Other public interests also quite obviously come into play. Public health systems should, of course, be provided with medicinal products that are not over-priced and repetitive trials on humans and animals should also be avoided whenever they are not necessary. Regulation of clinical trials ensures that ethical standards are observed and that the person and bodily integrity of the subjects of clinical trials are appropriately protected."], "id": "7c6e5dbb-85c8-49f2-841b-faaaeb3d0f46", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["verification that the third-country national concerned, his or her means of transport and the objects he or she is transporting are not likely to jeopardise the public policy, internal security, or international relations of any of the Member States. Such verification shall include direct consultation of the data and alerts on persons and, where necessary, objects included in the SIS and in national data files and the action to be performed, if any, as a result of an alert;"], "id": "f6b86484-1095-4247-a6ac-548a0f098fd8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["It should be emphasised that A satisfies the two conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38. It is apparent from the decision to refer and it is common ground between the parties that, at the time when he requested affiliation to the Latvian social security in order to receive such benefits, A had sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance. As regards the latter condition, it was stated at the hearing before the Court that he had taken out that insurance with a private insurance company. Nor is it disputed that he continued to satisfy both of those conditions at all times, after requesting to be affiliated to the social security of the host Member State. Such a Union citizen should therefore, in principle, enjoy equal treatment with nationals, under Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38, provided that he does not come within one of the three cases referred to in paragraph 2 of that provision, and should therefore be able to be affiliated to the social security of the host Member State on the same conditions as nationals. That would mean that he could not only have access to health care benefits coming within the system, but also that those benefits should be provided by the State on the same conditions as those applicable to nationals."], "id": "5c9729d3-5790-4b68-a8e9-b4e808528c02", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, I propose to answer the first question as follows: Article 26 of Regulation No 1169/2011 should be interpreted as having harmonised the conditions under which the indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of milk used as a final product or as an ingredient may be made mandatory by Member States. That provision does not, however, preclude Member States from making that indication mandatory on the basis of Article 39 of that regulation where this is justified by considerations such as the protection of , the rights of consumers, the avoidance of fraud or the prevention of unfair competition and where the conditions laid down in that provision are fulfilled."], "id": "10e89c4c-dd67-4f87-8cf1-741abad061aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["It would appear that the objective of the protection of was not specifically part of the equation in the balance struck by the EU legislature at EU level when setting the rules for the operation of the common market concerning wine products. That objective was part of a different national regulatory regime, guided by different considerations, which only incidentally overlapped with the EU one. The national rule at stake was a measure applicable only at the retail stage. Thus, although retail is naturally also a stage (the last stage) of the marketing chain, the overlap and thus ensuing conflict between EU rules and the national rules was indeed marginal."], "id": "b8cc47c7-2404-4091-af02-d047e7453e20", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["According to the settled case-law of the Court, since the health and life of humans rank foremost among the assets and interests protected by TFEU, it is for Member States to determine the level of protection which they wish to afford to and the way in which that level has to be achieved. Since that level may vary from one Member State to another, Member States should be allowed some measure of discretion (see judgment of 8 June 2017, Medisanus, C\u2011296/15, EU:C:2017:431, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited). Consequently, the fact that a Member State imposes less strict rules than another Member State does not mean that the latter\u2019s rules are disproportionate (judgment of 18 September 2019, VIPA, C\u2011222/18, EU:C:2019:751, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e49d1ec8-9c69-40c9-b2dd-a720679fa1ff", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["2. This Directive shall not affect the right of a Member State to maintain or introduce further requirements, applicable to all products placed on its market, in relation to the standardisation of the packaging of tobacco products, where it is justified on grounds of , taking into account the high level of protection of human health achieved through this Directive. Such measures shall be proportionate and may not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. Those measures shall be notified to the Commission together with the grounds for maintaining or introducing them."], "id": "b1b6cb96-8820-432d-b6ab-4faea7b6c9f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["The first of those conditions is clearly fulfilled in the present case. The referring court starts from the premiss that, as the tribunal de commerce de Paris (Commercial Court, Paris) found, Articles R. 4235\u201122 and R. 4235\u201164 of the Code apply to all pharmacies selling medicinal products to the French public, whether they are established in France or in another Member State."], "id": "d5c9ca14-ce05-4fd8-a1ff-5ffc411709da", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In exercising their discretion relating to the protection of , the Member States must comply with the principle of proportionality. The means which they choose must therefore be confined to what is actually necessary to ensure the safeguarding of public health; they must be proportional to the objective thus pursued, which could not have been attained by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade (judgment of 28 January 2010, Commission v France, C\u2011333/08, EU:C:2010:44, paragraph 90)."], "id": "cf562a1b-de45-49f1-ad74-63320c4440a8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The Plant Protection Regulation was adopted on the basis of Article 37(2), Article 95 and Article 152(4)(b) EC. These are the legal bases for the common agricultural and fisheries policies (now Article 41 TFEU), the internal market (now Article 114 TFEU) and measures in the veterinary and phytosanitary fields which derogate from the common agricultural policy and have as their direct objective the protection of (now Article 168(4)(b) TFEU)."], "id": "f99d1db7-9d9a-4cd8-9097-59821f10e159", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court observes that, as clear from recital 11 and Article 1 of Regulation No 1069/2009, its chief objectives are to control risks to public and animal health and to protect the safety of the food and feed chain. Any danger is therefore not limited to . Article 14(d) of Regulation No 1069/2009, it suggests, also emphasises that decomposition and spoilage cause risks to public and animal health."], "id": "0f4adca5-722d-44f9-a2c6-019674e964cb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, it should be recalled that the overriding need for safety in the field of (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 April 2012, Artegodan v Commission, C\u2011221/10 P, EU:C:2012:216, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited) logically presupposes that authorities can, when there are doubts concerning the reliability of information provided in support of an MA application, incline towards refusing an MA."], "id": "f15b9ea2-9698-4883-9189-6ca9e0b188d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The criteria attached to the grant of prior authorisation should be justified in the light of the overriding reasons of general interest capable of justifying obstacles to the free movement of healthcare, such as planning requirements relating to the aim of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the Member State concerned or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources. The Court \u2026 has identified several potential considerations: the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system, the objective of maintaining on grounds of a balanced medical and hospital service open to all and the objective of maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence on national territory, essential for the public health, and even the survival of the population. \u2026\u2019"], "id": "62d5f7a0-6e16-4a7b-b352-47b688182a70", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["It has already been shown that the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts in order to fill vacant posts in the sector pending the completion of selection processes is not justified, in principle, by an objective reason within the meaning of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement if the national rules in question do not, at the same time, lay down in binding form the time frame for holding and completing those selection processes. These considerations in relation to the absence of appropriate national measures to prevent the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts apply a fortiori with regard to the requirement under EU law to penalise possible abuse effectively."], "id": "0334c352-4763-4e5c-b541-81af8b32de5f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, first, the Court has held that the continuity requirement of services in the areas of , public safety and public order does not prevent the activities of those services, when performed in normal circumstances, from being organised, including as regards the working hours of their employees, with the consequence that the exception provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391 is applicable to such services only in circumstances whose gravity and scale are exceptional, such as natural or technological disasters, attacks or serious accidents, which require the adoption of measures indispensable for the protection of the life, health and safety of the community at large, measures the proper implementation of which would be jeopardised if all the rules laid down in Directive 2003/88 had to be observed. In such cases, it is appropriate to give absolute priority to the objective of protecting the population, to the detriment of compliance with the provisions of Directive 2003/88, which may be temporarily disregarded within those services (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 November 2018, Sindicatul Familia Constan\u0163a and Others, C\u2011147/17, EU:C:2018:926, paragraph 67, and of 30 April 2020, K\u00e9szenl\u00e9ti Rend\u0151rs\u00e9g, C\u2011211/19, EU:C:2020:344, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1eedee4e-7b45-4372-8f26-ec7e83d78cce", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must, again, be noted that the purpose of the classification of substances and mixtures such as CTPHT, according to Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1272/2008, is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. Moreover, although the precautionary principle is not expressly mentioned in Regulation No 1272/2008, that principle, on which the provisions of, inter alia, Regulation No 1907/2006 are based, cannot be disregarded when classifying chemical substances and mixtures, which is a closely connected field to that covered by Regulation No 1907/2006. The precautionary principle, which is a general principle of EU law, authorises the competent authorities, where there is uncertainty, to take appropriate measures in order to prevent certain potential risks for , safety and the environment without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 April 2014, Acino v Commission, C\u2011269/13 P, EU:C:2014:255, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "3626f723-32f9-4be4-9d60-de1ef25374f8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["\u20181. This Royal Decree shall govern the conditions for the exercise of the rights of entry and exit, free movement, stay, residence and work in Spain for nationals of other Member States of the European Union and other States parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as well as the limits imposed on those rights for reasons of public policy, public safety or ."], "id": "ed9bee1e-65ca-4536-bab7-1bb0d5f30684", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["It has been made in the context of two disputes, the first between Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (\u2018Italy Emergenza\u2019) and ULSS 5 Polesana Rovigo (local unit 5 of the Polesine of Rovigo, Italy, \u2018ULSS 5 Polesana\u2019), and the second between Associazione Volontaria di Pubblica Assistenza \u2018Croce Verde\u2019 (\u2018Croce Verde\u2019) and ULSS 5 Polesana and Regione del Veneto (Region of Veneto, Italy), concerning the award by ULSS 5 Polesana, by means of direct contracting, of a contract for ambulance transport services."], "id": "ded01ea4-c493-4523-bdfe-1f407d66b257", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["2. Member States may, to the extent justified by national security, public safety, , security of transport, protection of the environment, protection of biological resources and of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, safety of installations and of workers, planned management of hydrocarbon resources (for example the rate at which hydrocarbons are depleted or the optimisation of their recovery) or the need to secure tax revenues, impose conditions and requirements on the exercise of the activities set out in Article 2(1)."], "id": "387593ea-cb26-4a55-864b-43dadc22db38", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["That interpretation also enables a fair balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the objective of the SPC regime, as it is made apparent from recitals 3 to 5 and 9 of Regulation No 469/2009, of compensating for the inadequacy of protection conferred by a patent for the purpose of covering the investment put into research concerning new active ingredients or combinations of active ingredients and, therefore, of encouraging such research and, on the other hand, the EU legislature\u2019s intention, as set out in recital 10 of that Regulation, to achieve that objective in a manner that takes into account all the interests at stake, including those of , in a sector as complex and sensitive as the pharmaceutical sector (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 March 2019, Abraxis Bioscience, C\u2011443/17, EU:C:2019:238, paragraph 36)."], "id": "4e277bbc-5031-448c-833d-3a960499fe20", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["A appealed against that decision to the cour d\u2019appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France), arguing that Articles R. 4235-22 and R. 4235-64 of the Code do not apply to it. Those provisions, it argued, constitute barriers to the principle of the application of the rules of the country of origin, laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31 and Article 85c of Directive 2001/83, and to the free movement of goods guaranteed under Article 34 TFEU, which are not justified by the protection of public health."], "id": "e59960ef-f941-4fd0-a72b-b57f9e09dbeb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["11. The purpose of the Medicinal Products Directive (7) is set out in its recitals: \u2018(2) The essential aim of any rules governing the production, distribution and use of medicinal products must be to safeguard . (3) However, this objective must be attained by means which will not hinder the development of the pharmaceutical industry or trade in medicinal products within the Community.\u2019"], "id": "f343e6f4-c8d2-488d-8979-b301250b4119", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["41 In that context, the Court has already ruled that the database of a system for the identification and registration of animals is designed to ensure efficient tracing in real time of those animals, which is essential for reasons, and that such a database is able to confirm the fact that the conditions governing eligibility for aid are met, such as those relating to the density of livestock (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 July 2011, Nagy, C\u201121/10, EU:C:2011:505, paragraph 42)."], "id": "52afd0bf-3508-4540-9090-0979ec10ecf7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["I consider, in that respect, that it is appropriate to adopt a more nuanced interpretation than that proposed both by the Latvian and Spanish Governments and by the Commission, as the judgment in Jobcenter Krefeld, concerning the condition requiring sufficient resources, suggests. Such an approach is all the more desirable, to my mind, in the case of the condition requiring comprehensive sickness insurance. I shall demonstrate that the systematic refusal to allow economically inactive nationals of other Member States to receive care benefits, on the same conditions as nationals, before they have acquired a permanent right of residence, after residing for five years in the territory of the host Member State, is not supported by the wording of Articles 7, 14 and 24 of Directive 2004/38 and that it is contrary to the objective of freedom of movement for Union citizens and to the very concept of \u2018citizenship of the Union\u2019."], "id": "b5b0e623-a33a-4755-bc3f-428ad3fed863", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["From a factual point of view, the CAT refers here, first, as regards the GUK and Alpharma Agreements, to the limited benefits already considered above afforded by those agreements to consumers in terms of costs and quality. Second, as regards the IVAX Agreement, the CAT refers to the fact that it involved a reduction in the reimbursement level for paroxetine by reason of the structure of the national system for reimbursement to pharmacies by the authorities, which resulted in a substantial saving to those authorities."], "id": "96031f75-7dcd-4754-bfa6-7967a997a250", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Border control is in the interest not only of the Member State at whose external borders it is carried out but of all Member States which have abolished internal border control. Border control should help to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings and to prevent any threat to the Member States\u2019 internal security, public policy, and international relations;"], "id": "7c2f41fe-a624-4a23-8d3f-38e63fcb6cf6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In that respect, it must be noted that, in the same way as the substantive conditions for the suspension or withdrawal of an MA, the conditions for granting an MA must be interpreted in accordance with the general principle that can be identified from case-law that the protection of must unquestionably take precedence over economic considerations (see judgment of 19 April 2012, Artegodan v Commission, C\u2011221/10 P, EU:C:2012:216, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, the precautionary principle, which is a general principle of EU law, empowers, inter alia, the Commission to do no more than establish whether there is solid and persuasive evidence which may raise reasonable doubts regarding the safety of the medicinal product concerned or of the existence of a favourable risk-benefit balance (see, by analogy, regarding decisions to suspend, withdraw or vary an MA, judgment of 3 December 2015, PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission, C\u201182/15 P, not published, EU:C:2015:796, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "56a0dbba-1d1c-4452-859f-08b4f1e49ed4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In that respect, it is important to recall that the decision whether or not to authorise the placing on the market of a medicinal product must be based on a thorough examination of the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, and that such an examination must generally be based on an objective evaluation of its likely effects in the light of the scientific data submitted by the MA applicants. It is established that requirements must be recognised as fundamentally important (see in particular paragraphs 45 and 46 above)."], "id": "e14e266b-6bb3-4dc3-901f-a540412b0c88", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["By decision of 15 January 2018, the Minister refused to issue the visa. The refusal decision was based on the fact that one or more Member States, in this instance the Federal Republic of Germany, consider K.A. to be a threat to public policy, internal security or , as defined in Article 2(19) of the Schengen Borders Code, or to the international relations of one of the Member States."], "id": "c7fee74e-25e8-4491-9608-28c0064caca3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The peculiar nature of such a proposition becomes even more obvious if one were to consider the standard way in which any other area of administrative law is enforced, be it, for example, environmental law, , public safety, or the rules relating to safety at work. In those areas, there is likely to be a dedicated, specialised public authority at the national level tasked with supervising and enforcing the relevant substantive standards. However, would anybody suggest that just because a given public authority did not investigate or prosecute (or actually did, but for whatever reason discontinued or limited the administrative proceedings), that the same behaviour could not give rise to private law claims for compensation by the potentially injured person?"], "id": "db109980-51ee-41b2-9e8f-a53b77fe8c5d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has often dealt with the use of fixed-term employment relationships in the Member States\u2019 public services. In particular, the specific circumstances of the service of the Comunidad de Madrid, to which this case relates, were the subject of Case C\u201116/15. Because the referring courts still have serious doubts whether the requirements of EU law stemming from Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement are complied with in the public health service of the Comunidad de Madrid, they consider it necessary to make further references to the Court."], "id": "358d66a9-ee60-4283-824d-9ce486d09b4d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["43 As is set out in recital 24 of Regulation No 1107/2009, the provisions governing the grant of authorisations must ensure a high standard of protection of human and animal health and the environment. It is that objective which, according to recital 35 of the same regulation, is pursued by the proper use of plant protection products, in accordance with their authorisation. It should be recalled, in that context, that, according to Annex II to Regulation No 1306/2013, SMR 10, concerning compliance with the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 55 of Regulation No 1107/2009, seeks specifically to protect , animal health and plant health. SMR 10 is thus part of the basic CAP standards on public health, animal health and plant health integrated in the cross-compliance system, compliance with which is a condition for the full payment to beneficiaries of some supports under the CAP, in accordance with recitals 53 and 54 of Regulation No 1306/2013."], "id": "b36f2f96-4f24-4cb8-93d9-34eca9fa69c7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of that explanation, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings would appear to pursue the objective of protecting which can, in accordance with Article 52(1) TFEU, in principle justify restrictions on the freedom of establishment. More specifically, in paragraph 28 of the judgment of 19 May 2009, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others (C\u2011171/07 and C\u2011172/07, EU:C:2009:316), the Court stated that restrictions on the freedom of establishment may be justified by the objective of ensuring that the provision of medicinal products to the public is reliable and of good quality."], "id": "6f5f4ee0-2dc4-4b64-8475-7473b43d52c6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["(References for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Area of freedom, security and justice \u2013 Community Code on Visas \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 \u2013 Article 32(1) to (3) \u2013 Decision to refuse a visa \u2013 Annex VI \u2013 Standard form \u2013 Statement of reasons \u2013 Threat to public policy, internal security or , or to the international relations of any of the Member States \u2013 Article 22 \u2013 Procedure of prior consultation of central authorities of other Member States \u2013 Objection to the issuing of a visa \u2013 Appeal against a decision to refuse a visa \u2013 Scope of judicial review \u2013 Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Right to an effective remedy)"], "id": "1fccc321-40b4-4521-8a24-fdf531995fcc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Based on the case-law of the Court, the Commission Communication on parallel imports of proprietary medicinal products for which marketing authorisations have already been granted, of 30 December 2003 (COM(2003) 839 final), states, in point 3 thereof, \u2018in particular, when the information necessary for the purposes of protecting is already available to the competent authorities of the Member State of destination as a result of the first marketing of a product in this Member State, a parallel imported medicinal product is subject to a licence granted on the basis of a proportionally simplified procedure provided [that] the imported product has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of exportation [and that] the imported product is sufficiently similar to a product that has already received marketing authorisation in the Member State of destination even if there are differences relating to the excipients\u2019."], "id": "f6e737f0-b687-401c-b634-07e69931518e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Contrary to arguments put forward by the United Kingdom, it seems to me that this is a situation which must be remedied by enforcement action. Here, it is a matter of removing meat that presents a danger to by deciding not to apply a health mark. As indicated by the claimants, there is no distinction between Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation No 854/2004 as regards decisions taken by competent authorities which are subject to Article 54 of Regulation No 882/2004, particularly as this would run counter to the broad concept of non-compliance in Article 2 of Regulation No 882/2004 and the measures envisaged by Article 54(2) thereof. Article 4(3) of Regulation No 854/2004 also states that official controls for the purposes of Article 4(1) of that regulation include those specified in Article 5 thereof."], "id": "40007941-eb74-4d5d-bac2-0f9ae320d895", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["With respect to companies of veterinary surgeons, the Republic of Austria submits that it is not possible to maintain that there is no connection between the profession of veterinary surgeon and the protection of , in so far as that profession plays the part of guarantor as regards the production of safe foodstuffs. The Republic of Austria submits that veterinary surgeons are obliged, not only under the T\u00c4G but also under other legislation, to declare diseases of animals and certain human diseases or the suspicion of infection by one of those diseases."], "id": "6577607b-62a3-4d42-8d96-542ec5c2daa7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The importance of the objective of protecting is confirmed by Article 168(1) TFEU and Article 35 of the Charter under which, inter alia, a high level of protection for human health is to be ensured in the definition and implementation of all policies and activities of the European Union. See to that effect, judgment of 5 December 2013, Venturini and Others (C\u2011159/12 to C\u2011161/12, EU:C:2013:791, paragraphs 40 and 41 and the case-law cited). It is settled case-law that the aim of maintaining the quality of medical services, such as pharmaceutical services, may be covered by one of the exceptions provided for in Article 52(1) TFEU, in so far as it contributes to the attainment of a high level of health protection. Judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C\u201189/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "189846cf-0ad5-422d-b6ca-db885cd38c18", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["So far as the issue of any teleological interpretation is concerned, recitals 22 to 27 of Directive 2004/38 are particularly enlightening. First, after recalling that the Treaty allows restrictions to be placed on the right of free movement and residence on grounds of public policy, public security or , recital 22 provides that \u2018in order to ensure a tighter definition of the circumstances and procedural safeguards subject to which Union citizens and their family members may be denied leave to enter or may be expelled, this Directive should replace Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals, which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health\u2019, which actually dealt only with expulsion. Second, all of the other recitals relating to Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38 refer only to expulsion (recitals 23, 24 and 27) or refusal of entry to another Member State (recitals 25 and 26)."], "id": "51b22b28-4ecc-414e-b9c8-305538b91fcb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["That division of tasks between the Commission and the competent authorities of third countries, such as is established by Regulation No 854/2004, required that provision be made for a safeguard measure for the protection of in the European Union. Therefore, according to Article 12(4)(c) of that regulation, whenever the Commission considers it necessary to modify a list of establishments drawn up by the authorities of a third country, in the light of relevant information such as European Union inspection reports or RASFF notifications put in place to that end pursuant to Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1), it is to inform all Member States and include the point on the agenda of the next meeting of the relevant section of the Standing Committee for decision, where appropriate, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation No 854/2004. That procedure leads to the adoption of an implementing act, such as the contested implementing regulation, modifying the list of third-country establishments whose products of animal origin may be imported into the European Union."], "id": "ed081e6e-17ac-4e55-a8d0-0faba9941ac9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Within the process leading to the adoption by an institution of appropriate measures to prevent certain potential risks to , safety and the environment by reason of the precautionary principle, three successive stages can be identified: first, identification of the potentially adverse effects arising from a phenomenon; second, assessment of the risks to public health, safety and the environment which are related to that phenomenon; and, third, when the potential risks identified exceed the threshold of what is acceptable for society, risk management by the adoption of appropriate protective measures (judgment of 17 May 2018, BASF Agro and Others v Commission, T\u2011584/13, EU:T:2018:279, paragraph 60)."], "id": "d72b74b6-393a-4649-b775-08cde29e8a51", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["By contrast, the rules on advertising online sales services relating to medicinal products could, in so far as they have the effect of restricting the online sale of medicinal products to patients, constitute conditions for the retail sale, within the territory of a Member State, of medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services. Under Article 85c(2) of Directive 2001/83, Member States may lay down such conditions provided that they are justified on grounds of protection."], "id": "6cec6b5d-b503-430b-b9cd-bdd3f4e56576", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Inasmuch, therefore, as the Court appears to have suggested in paragraph 54 of L.u.p. that the discretion conferred by Article 132(1)(b) of the VAT Directive on the Member States would enable them to impose a requirement that the medical centre in question treat a specified percentage of patients covered by health insurance schemes as a condition of recognition, that suggestion is, with respect, incorrect and is unsupported by both the actual legislative text and, for that matter, the earlier case-law. The due recognition requirement of Article 132(1)(b) of the VAT Directive simply enables Member States to ensure that the medical establishments meet appropriate standards of health care delivery: it should not be interpreted as permitting Member States, so to speak, to conscript private health care providers into a system by subjecting the former to a disadvantageous treatment for VAT purposes. As I have just indicated, in so far as the Court appears to suggest otherwise in paragraph 54 of L.u.p., I consider \u2013 again, with respect \u2013 that this was in error and should not now be followed or applied."], "id": "43cae1b5-27cf-4059-9174-2e43659734ce", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["By decision of 11 July 2017, the tribunal de commerce de Paris (Commercial Court, Paris) ruled that the creation of A\u2019s French website was governed by Netherlands law. However, according to that court, Articles R. 4235\u201122 and R. 4235\u201164 of the Code are applicable to companies established in other Member States which sell medicinal products via the internet to French patients. By distributing more than three million advertising leaflets outside of its pharmacy, A had solicited French clients by methods unworthy of the profession of pharmacist and in breach of those provisions. The tribunal de commerce de Paris (Commercial Court, Paris) concluded that the failure to comply with those provisions, which conferred on A an economic advantage over other market operators, amounted to unfair competition."], "id": "14de8d70-ea89-481b-afa0-a5c96d163af4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the objective of protection of , it follows from the Court\u2019s case-law that requirements relating to shares in companies of veterinary surgeons being held exclusively by members of that profession are suitable for reducing the risks that such companies may adopt economic strategies liable to undermine the objective of protection of health and the independence of veterinary surgeons (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 March 2018, CMVRO, C\u2011297/16, EU:C:2018:141, paragraphs 82 and 83)."], "id": "3549f802-530f-4ecb-be7a-fa1b4b5c7833", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["May not, on the other hand, disregard the other mandatory EU provisions: in so far as is relevant for the present purposes, those adopted in the field of and, more specifically, the hygiene of foodstuffs. Recital 6 of Directive 2004/18 reads: \u2018Nothing in this Directive should prevent the imposition or enforcement of measures necessary to protect \u2026 health [and] human \u2026 life \u2026, provided that these measures are in conformity with the Treaty.\u2019"], "id": "1ec1d56d-20a4-4d04-ba82-3fb160a9f60d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["73. In accordance with the second recital of Directive 96/62, recital 2 of Directive 2008/58 and Article 1(1) of both directives, those directives aim to avoid, prevent or reduce harmful effects on human health. (45) The rules on ambient air quality laid down in those directives thus put into concrete terms the EU\u2019s obligations concerning environmental protection and the protection of , which stem, inter alia, from Article 3(3) TEU and Article 191(1) and (2) TFEU. According to those provisions, Union policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection, taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions, and is to be based, inter alia, on the precautionary principle and on the principle that preventive action should be taken. (46) That obligation of protection also follows from Articles 2, 3 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (47)"], "id": "d767b11c-a739-4169-ad7e-123ddb07dd79", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Medicinal products for human use not subject to compulsory medical prescription \u2013 Online sales \u2013 Advertising for a pharmacy\u2019s website \u2013 Limitations \u2013 Obligation to require a patient to complete a health questionnaire prior to validation of his or her first order on a pharmacy\u2019s website \u2013 Free movement of goods \u2013 Article 34 TFEU \u2013 Selling arrangements \u2013 Obstacles \u2013 Article 36 TFEU \u2013 Justification \u2013 Protection of the dignity of the profession of pharmacist \u2013 Prevention of the abusive consumption of medicinal products \u2013 Protection of \u2013 Directive 2000/31/EC \u2013 Electronic commerce \u2013 Article 2(a) \u2013 Information society service \u2013 Article 2(h) \u2013 Coordinated field \u2013 Article 3 \u2013 Country-of-origin principle \u2013 Derogations \u2013 Justification \u2013 Protection of public health \u2013 Information and notification obligation \u2013 Directive 2001/83/EC \u2013 Community code relating to medicinal products for human use \u2013 Article 85c(2) \u2013 Option for Member States to impose conditions, justified on grounds of public health protection, for the retail supply within their territory of medicinal products sold online)"], "id": "cdc88f5e-ca00-4821-b0d2-1a41a5eb23a4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public health", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Health rules applicable to animal by-products not intended for human consumption \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 \u2013 Article 7(1) \u2013 Classification reflecting the level of risk to public and animal health \u2013 Article 10(a) and (f) \u2013 Category 3 material \u2013 Decomposition, spoilage and presence of foreign bodies in the material \u2013 Obligation to downgrade to Category 2 material \u2013 Article 9(h) \u2013 Article 4(1) and (2) \u2013 Obligation to monitor operators from the collection to the use or disposal of animal by-products)"], "id": "418b53e5-88d8-4ebf-a74e-9043b85e41b5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Freedom of establishment may, in the absence of EU harmonisation measures, be limited by national regulations justified by the reasons stated in Article 52(1) TFEU or by pressing reasons in the general interest. Thus, in accordance with Article 52(1) TFEU, where a restriction results from a measure which discriminates on grounds of nationality, it may be justified on grounds of public policy, public security or . Where there is no such discrimination, the restriction may also be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. In that context, it is for the Member States to decide on the level at which they intend to ensure the protection of the objectives set out in Article 52(1) TFEU and of the general interest and also on the way in which that level must be attained. However, they can do so only within the limits set by the Treaty and, in particular, they must observe the principle of proportionality, which requires that the measures adopted be appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective which they pursue and do not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose."], "id": "1c0f03d3-63d3-449e-81ca-f93595e385f2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Article 3(4)(a) of Directive 2000/31 provides that any measure restricting the free movement of an information society service must be necessary to safeguard public policy, the protection of , public security or the protection of consumers, must be taken against a service which effectively prejudices those objectives or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to them and must be proportionate to those objectives. Those requirements of necessity and proportionality largely overlap with the requirements which must be fulfilled by any obstacle to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Articles 34 and 56 TFEU. Accordingly, as the Commission has argued, it is in the light of the case-law relating to those provisions that it is necessary to assess whether the measures at issue are compatible with Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31."], "id": "12b43eea-cabe-4853-9302-5906b5743396", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["That being so, the consequences that follow from such a link of integration must still be assessed, in the light of the fact that the sector has particular characteristics that are recognised by the FEU Treaty and reflected in the Court\u2019s case-law. The Court has consistently held that the protection of public health is one of the overriding reasons in the general interest which can, under Article 52 TFEU, justify restrictions of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. The same applies with respect to the freedom of movement and of residence of a Union citizen under Article 27 of Directive 2004/38. That derogation covers, more specifically, two objectives, namely the objective of maintaining a balanced high-quality medical or hospital service open to all and the objective of preventing the risk of serious harm to the financial balance of the social security system."], "id": "4e9e161b-e4bc-4f3a-b7e1-70d2c2395ae2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["19 In addition, although Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2073/2005 obliges food business operators to ensure that foodstuffs comply with the relevant microbiological criteria set out in Annex I to that regulation, that obligation cannot prevent competent authorities from searching for pathogenic microorganisms other than those listed in that annex, in accordance with the objective of a high level of protection of set out in recital 1 of that regulation. As the European Commission has emphasised in its written observations, in order to take account of the food safety criteria set out in Chapter 1 of that annex, food business operators must include, in the procedures they apply, systematic checks of contamination by certain microorganisms, although such an obligation does not mean that the pathogenic microorganisms covered by those criteria are the only ones unsafe for human health."], "id": "0ac31bfb-f143-44e5-8b16-ffc920cd7d76", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The pharmacovigilance system shall be used to collect information on the risks of medicinal products as regards patients\u2019 or . That information shall in particular refer to adverse reactions in human beings, arising from use of the medicinal product within the terms of the marketing authorisation as well as from use outside the terms of the marketing authorisation, and to adverse reactions associated with occupational exposure."], "id": "b0624460-885f-47d9-af4e-c0597202f522", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, beyond the various criteria for the interpretation of Article 69(1) of Directive 2001/83 set out in the preceding paragraphs of the present judgment, the conclusion in paragraph 41 thereof is corroborated by the interest of safeguarding , which is, as stated in recital 2 of that directive, the essential aim of any rules governing the production, distribution and use of medicinal products."], "id": "9f9e841f-06d2-4a4a-9001-262f52ac53f9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["As regards capitalising on the professional experience gained in order to ensure that pharmacies are run more effectively, it is apparent from the file before the Court that the unconditional right of pre-emption granted to the pharmacists employed by a municipal pharmacy, where that pharmacy is sold by tender, gives rise to an non-rebuttable presumption that those employees are best placed to manage that pharmacy as owners. Such a right of pre-emption is not based on any real assessment of the experience actually gained, the quality of service provided or the duties actually performed within the municipal pharmacy. Consequently, it cannot be regarded as being appropriate for attaining the objective of protecting ."], "id": "aa142a7b-a0bc-403e-84ae-6e58abad558c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["It is clear that the reasons relied on to justify the expulsion of Ms Chenchooliah are not based on grounds of public policy, public security or covered by Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38. As the Minister stated in his written observations and confirmed at the hearing, her expulsion is based on the fact that, since his return to Portugal, her Union citizen spouse has ceased exercising his right of free movement in Ireland. The Minister also stated that a deportation order, such as the proposed order to deport Ms Chenchooliah, is a measure to control immigration adopted to serve economic ends."], "id": "2ce7c14b-f216-4b80-bd0d-1a3362931c9b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Directive 2004/38 lays down restrictions and procedural safeguards applicable to the expulsion of Union citizens and their family members. More specifically, that directive draws a distinction between two different sets of rules which are based on the grounds justifying the expulsion. Thus, an expulsion decision may be justified either on grounds of public policy, public security or (Chapter VI), or on other grounds (Article 15), inter alia the fact that a beneficiary of Directive 2004/38 ceases to fulfil the conditions of residence laid down in that directive."], "id": "a961e910-4f8d-48fc-9bbd-f625d291c265", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from the case file submitted to the Court that the Decree of 28 November 2016 of the Minister for Social Affairs and Health on the technical rules applicable to websites for the electronic commerce in medicinal products provided for in Article L. 5125\u201139 of the Code (JORF of 1 December 2016, text no 26; \u2018the Decree on technical rules\u2019) contains an annex, Section 1 of which, entitled \u2018Functional aspects of websites for the electronic commerce in medicinal products\u2019, provides that \u2018paid referencing on search engines or price comparison websites shall be prohibited\u2019."], "id": "60aeef1b-8379-40be-acd7-4674838c20d9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["On 22 November 2017, R.N.N.S. lodged an appeal against the latter decision before the referring court, maintaining that he cannot be considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security or or to the international relations of one of the Member States. The applicant relies, in particular, on the absence of effective judicial protection, since he is not able to challenge the substance of the Minister for Foreign Affairs\u2019 refusal decision. According to the Minister, Hungary\u2019s ground for refusal cannot be reviewed as to its substance in the Netherlands and for that reason R.N.N.S. should bring proceedings before the Hungarian courts to that end."], "id": "05679fb8-4d57-41c8-bf32-26ffcd46f02d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["As is apparent from the order for reference, Article R. 4235\u201164 of the Code has also been interpreted by the tribunal de commerce de Paris (Commercial Court, Paris) as prohibiting promotions linked to the amount of the order where they are displayed on a pharmacy\u2019s website. Moreover, the Decree on technical rules prohibits pharmacies from using paid referencing on search engines and price comparison websites. In so far as the purpose of that technique is to attract to a pharmacy\u2019s website potential consumers who conduct internet searches, paid referencing is also in the nature of advertising."], "id": "83a3ad30-78f9-4791-8711-d4839fa6bff5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Citizenship of the Union \u2013 Article 21 TFEU \u2013 Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 15 \u2013 Decision restricting free movement on grounds other than public policy, public security or \u2013 Illegal residence of a Union citizen in the host Member State \u2013 Expulsion decision \u2013 Physical departure of the Union citizen from the host Member State \u2013 Temporal effects of the expulsion decision \u2013 Articles 5, 6 and 7 \u2013 Possibility of the Union citizen enjoying a new right of entry or of residence on his or her return to the host Member State)"], "id": "6b5f7157-33c4-4272-a9cd-c50c9ba3960a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["9 Under Article 16 of Directive 2008/98, entitled \u2018Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity\u2019: \u20181. Member States shall take appropriate measures, in cooperation with other Member States where this is necessary or advisable, to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations and of installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households, including where such collection also covers such waste from other producers, taking into account best available techniques. By way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, Member States may, in order to protect their network, limit incoming shipments of waste destined to incinerators that are classified as recovery, where it has been established that such shipments would result in national waste having to be disposed of or waste having to be treated in a way that is not consistent with their waste management plans. Member States shall notify the Commission of any such decision. Member States may also limit outgoing shipments of waste on environmental grounds as set out in Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. 2. The network shall be designed to enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal as well as in the recovery of waste referred to in paragraph 1, and to enable Member States to move towards that aim individually, taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste. 3. The network shall enable waste to be disposed of or waste referred to in paragraph 1 to be recovered in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and . 4. The principles of proximity and self-sufficiency shall not mean that each Member State has to possess the full range of final recovery facilities within that Member State.\u2019 Decision 2000/532/EC"], "id": "8f8a4263-9449-46ae-a161-831838be0f0e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, and in so far as the Court does not have sufficient information regarding the possible existence of more precise conditions governing the application of the prohibition on promotional offers and, in particular, regarding whether that prohibition relates only to the promotion of medicinal products or also to the promotion of para-pharmaceutical products, it is for the referring court to ascertain how the prohibition at issue is applied in practice and whether such application goes, in some circumstances, beyond what is necessary to protect ."], "id": "7c2b04b2-7646-469f-8d3f-2d1fbb46ec8f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Article 31(1) of Directive 2004/38, for its part, provides that Union citizens have access to judicial and, where appropriate, administrative redress procedures in the host Member State to appeal against or seek review of any decision restricting their right to move and reside freely in the Member States taken against them on the grounds of public policy, public security or ."], "id": "d3552966-34c1-4686-a9d6-bf776f943a76", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["In those circumstances, it does not appear that a pharmacy established in another Member State is deprived of every possibility of advertising its online sales services targeted at French consumers. In any event, I note that the case in the main proceedings concerns only the compatibility with EU law of a prohibition on a pharmacist conducting an advertising campaign for its online sales services consisting in the dispatch of unsolicited advertising leaflets to the public offering, in some circumstances, discounts on the price of the medicinal products ordered. The resolution of this case does not require a decision on whether the provisions of the Code are disproportionate, in so far as they also prohibit other forms of advertising."], "id": "176d0e8a-a3a6-49d9-94d9-1c0108b44f43", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["On the other hand, according to the settled case-law of the Court, the right to property, which is guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter, is not an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 2003, Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood, C\u201120/00 and C\u201164/00, EU:C:2003:397, paragraph 68). In the context of the case in the main proceedings, the right to property must be reconciled with Article 38 of the Charter, which, like Article 168(4)(b) TFEU, seeks to ensure a high level of consumer protection in EU policies, including the protection of ."], "id": "681b9b81-a3d7-457b-bb44-1c07c6d75e23", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Although the procedure laid down by that directive may, in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 5(1) of that directive, relate to a Member State\u2019s measures seeking to restrict the marketing or use of a chemical substance or product on grounds of or protection of the environment, the fact remains that the two procedures referred to in the first question are different."], "id": "4a9ae932-1c8d-4d38-b139-ebbb1e64e4e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The objective appears to it to be already taken into consideration in Regulation No 1308/2013 in so far as that regulation limits its scope to varieties providing safeguards to be determined in respect of the content of intoxicating substances and adopts, first, a restriction regarding seeds and, second, a level of 0.2% in respect of the THC content of hemp."], "id": "84cfb92d-2b56-464e-b5c9-2cae55e43049", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court also indicates that neither R.N.N.S. nor K.A. were aware of any decision concerning them in relation to public policy, internal security, or the international relations of any of the Member States that might have been adopted by the competent authorities of the Member States that objected to the issuing of their visas. In addition, that court emphasises that, even if such decisions had been adopted, it is not possible, on the basis of the information in the main proceedings, to verify whether R.N.N.S. and K.A. had effective remedies against those decisions in those Member States."], "id": "21eabaa2-ede1-41c9-93a3-1de92eaf3398", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Such an objective, inasmuch as it is akin to the objective of protecting , expressly referred to in Article 52(1) TFEU, may justify a restriction of freedom of establishment. It has also been held that restrictions of freedom of establishment may be justified by the objective of ensuring that the public has a supply of medicinal products which is reliable and of good quality, which constitutes an overriding reason in the general interest (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 December 2013, Venturini and Others, C\u2011159/12 to C\u2011161/12, EU:C:2013:791, paragraphs 40 and 41)."], "id": "c3f52f3c-00e1-4e08-a0bb-5df8ab00279e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The applicant claims that the need clause introduces indirect discrimination between Swiss medical practitioners, who are mostly trained in Switzerland and are therefore not concerned by that clause, and medical practitioners who are nationals of a Member State, who are mostly trained in the European Union and are directly concerned by the prohibition on practising under the Swiss compulsory sickness insurance scheme. In addition, the need clause introduces discrimination between medical practitioners who have practised at a recognised Swiss post-graduate training facility for at least three years and other medical practitioners. The introduction of that clause constitutes an infringement of Articles 2, 7 and 13 of the AFMP and of Article 55 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), as well as a failure to observe the case-law of the Court, which the Swiss Confederation committed to take into account pursuant to Article 16(2) of the AFMP. In addition, the Swiss authorities are failing to comply with the principle of reciprocity. The applicant asserts that the grounds of the judgment of the TAF of 19 March 2018 justifying the discrimination at issue in the light of objectives are vitiated by an error of law in the light of the case-law of the Court and are not valid in scientific terms. In any event, the need clause infringes the principle of proportionality. The applicant adds that the discrimination at issue is exacerbated in his regard by the fact that his experience at SOS m\u00e9decins of Geneva cannot be taken into account by way of an exemption from the need clause, and by application, within the public authorities of the canton of Geneva, of a directive requiring that preference be given to employing local jobseekers over cross-border workers. Given the uncertainty as to his ability to continue practising within SOS m\u00e9decins of Geneva, he has been placed in a situation of legal uncertainty."], "id": "6437a217-326d-425c-ad6c-aa0a27e6e433", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with the principle of proportionality, the measures provided for in this Directive are strictly limited to the minimum needed to achieve the objective of the proper functioning of the internal market; where action at Community level is necessary, and in order to guarantee an area which is truly without internal frontiers as far as electronic commerce is concerned, the Directive must ensure a high level of protection of objectives of general interest, in particular the protection of minors and human dignity, consumer protection and the protection of ; \u2026"], "id": "32599e3f-a520-458d-ac38-87a7aec97e19", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["122. In those circumstances, and should the Court conclude, contrary to my suggestion above, that the prohibition at issue constitutes a restriction to trade caught by Article 34 TFEU, I consider that that prohibition is justified by the objective of protecting and the environment, is appropriate to attain that objective, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. V. Conclusion"], "id": "f2429a8c-a91b-4bb4-87c0-e9f519805d7f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["As is clear from the case-law recalled in paragraph 23 of this judgment, it is for the Member Stated concerned, in this connection, to adopt a comprehensive legislative framework, which may include, in accordance with Article 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Habitats Directive, measures intended to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops or livestock, or measures adopted in the interests of and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature."], "id": "632faeed-50e2-4bd8-acf5-038bfdd54196", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, it is apparent from those factors \u2014 and above all from the decision of the competent judge authorising on-the-spot investigations in respect of a series of natural persons, adopted on 4 March 2018 \u2014 that the investigations by the Brazilian Federal Police and the judicial authorities relate to extensive cases of fraud in the form of falsifications linked to the certification of products of animal origin with the participation of high-ranking staff and the knowledge of members of the applicants\u2019 board of directors. That decision refers to conduct within the group to which the applicants belong aimed at frustrating the control system by means of falsified certificates. In that context, the fact, assuming it were established, that, at the time when that document was drawn up, a single establishment appearing until that point on the lists at issue was directly concerned, namely the establishment bearing approval number 1001, does not affect the Commission\u2019s assessment on the scale of the threat posed by such conduct and, consequently, on the reliability of the guarantees provided by the Brazilian authorities specifically against that type of threat. Moreover, as the Commission submits, the fully integrated nature of that group means that their products must move from one establishment to another in order to undergo the necessary processing operations. In addition, the possible involvement of members of the board of directors and of the applicants\u2019 senior staff does not permit a conclusion to be drawn with certainty, while the investigation is still ongoing, that the conduct complained of is confined to a single establishment."], "id": "f947a6e4-64f8-41a3-96d1-a8e1f9d44124", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["A has put forward a series of less restrictive measures which, in its view, would make it possible to achieve the desired aim of protecting with the same effectiveness. In particular, it argues, the Decree on best practice in the dispensing of medicinal products already ensures that patients can benefit from individual advice by requiring virtual pharmacies to provide them with the possibility of an interactive exchange with a pharmacist. A states that it also monitors the quantities ordered via its website on the basis of various factors, including the patient\u2019s order history. Those controls are claimed to be sufficient to prevent the risk of overconsumption of medicinal products. The Commission also considers that giving a patient access to the package leaflet, reminding him of the main contra-indications and giving him the option of questioning a pharmacist before placing an order, as well as the possibility of pharmacists contacting a patient on the basis of the information available to them and in particular the order history, constitute less restrictive alternative measures."], "id": "e607661e-e421-42a3-b594-906d9adf4faf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In those circumstances, I propose that the Court\u2019s answer to the first question should be that care benefits, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are granted to recipients without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, on the basis of a legally defined situation, do not come within the concept of \u2018social and medical assistance\u2019 within the meaning of Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, but come within the concept of \u2018sickness benefits\u2019 within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation."], "id": "3e6ac20c-3ba6-48f6-a8b4-9eeebb47433e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["I note that the Court adopted that approach in the judgment of 25 July 2002, MRAX, on the right of residence of a third-country national, the spouse of a national of a Member State. It recognised that, in view of the importance attached by the EU legislature to the protection of family life, a Member State cannot, without infringing the principle of proportionality, send back at the border a third-country national who is married to a national of a Member State and attempts to enter its territory without being in possession of a valid identity card or passport or, if necessary, a visa, where that national is able to prove his or her identity and the conjugal ties and there is no evidence to establish that he or she represents a risk to the requirements of public policy, public security or within the meaning of Article 10 of Directive 68/360/EEC and Article 8 of Directive 73/148."], "id": "1b62676a-db23-4ba5-85aa-ddeded184f15", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["the supply of services and of goods closely linked to social security, welfare or , carried out by bodies governed by public law, mutual investment funds, public bodies or those of public interest, care homes, old peoples\u2019 homes, gerontological or geriatric institutions, hospital or charitable organisations and other similar private sector institutions, where those bodies are recognised by the competent public authorities as being devoted to social wellbeing;"], "id": "4f74974b-7316-4cb7-a8f4-f85ba7b2d11a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, the decision whether or not to grant an MA, which must be founded on a high standard of protection, must be taken solely on the basis of the criteria of safety and efficacy arising from the relevant provisions of EU law. While it cannot be excluded that an MA applicant may rely on pre- and post-marketing data concerning third countries, no argument can be inferred, in absolute terms, from the fact that an MA has been granted in those countries (see, by analogy, as regards the grant of the status of orphan medicinal product, judgment of 9 September 2010, Now Pharm v Commission, T\u201174/08, EU:T:2010:376, paragraph 57)."], "id": "939f3fee-044c-4396-8eb0-20fb1492f9b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Article 23(1)(e) of that regulation, which reproduces and amends the provision formerly set out in Article 13(1)(e) of that directive, states that Union or Member State law may restrict by way of a legislative measure the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in, inter alia, Articles 13 to 15 thereof when such a restriction respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard certain important objectives of general public interest, in particular an important economic or financial interest of the Union or of a Member State, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters, and social security."], "id": "df5ad0b6-1e0d-405b-b9ae-9e7fefd9c588", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Although it is admittedly a close call, in the light of all the legal and factual elements in the case file, I would, on balance, be inclined to give a positive answer to that question. The contested regulation indeed has an impact on the way in which the respondents are able lawfully to exercise their specific powers in the area of environmental protection and the protection of when tackling pollution and ensuring the appropriate standards of air quality, as they are legally obliged to do."], "id": "183ca941-1acd-46b5-a929-0d708822f91e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In this sense falling under Article 34 TFEU in principle, while it certainly can still be justified under both, protection of the environment and/or of , if proportionate \u2013 see judgment of 4 June 2009, Mickelsson and Roos (C\u2011142/05, EU:C:2009:336, paragraphs 31 to 40), and of 10 February 2009, Commission v Italy (C\u2011110/05, EU:C:2009:66, paragraphs 59 to 69). See also judgment of 21 December 2011, Commission v Austria (C\u201128/09, EU:C:2011:854, paragraphs 125 and 140)."], "id": "06ea1302-cce4-4ddd-94b3-20992de2a2ab", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The third question raised by the referring court seeks to assess the proportionality of a system of day fines, such as that provided for by the Finnish Criminal Code, in the light of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38. That article concerns the justifications for restrictions on freedom of movement on grounds of public policy, public security or . According to the Court, failure to comply with legal formalities pertaining to persons\u2019 access, movement and residence does not by itself constitute a threat to public policy or security."], "id": "8539b856-977f-410a-95c8-80c71152b900", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court considers that it is necessary to assess the applicant\u2019s specific situation. It emphasises, in particular, that A moved to Latvia to join his family, that he was employed in Italy, that he has sought work in Latvia and that he has, in that Member State, two infant children with dual Latvian and Italian nationality. In its view, those factors argue in favour of the existence of close personal links between the applicant and the Republic of Latvia that do not allow him to be automatically excluded from affiliation to its system."], "id": "7fe93fe6-1893-495d-95c4-3c5d28a4e58b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["19 Under Paragraph 3 of Law No 100/2001, in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, for the purposes of that law: \u2018\u2026 (c) the territory concerned is the territory whose environment and population could be subject to a significant effect in the event of the implementation of the project or plan; (d) the self-governing territorial unit concerned is the self-governing territorial unit whose administrative district encompasses at least a part of the territory concerned; \u2026 (i) the part of public concerned \u2026 2. A legal entity under private law whose line of business is, pursuant to its legal deed of establishment, environmental protection or protection of and whose main line of business is not enterprise or another gainful activity, which was established at least three years prior to the date of the publication of information concerning the follow-up proceedings referred to in Paragraph 9b(1) or prior to the date of the adoption of a decision pursuant to Paragraph 7(6), or which is supported by the signatures of at least 200 persons.\u2019"], "id": "5a0846de-39f2-4a7c-9dda-440a647aa561", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["The seemingly persistent and widespread use of fixed-term working to meet staffing needs within the service in the Comunidad de Madrid (Autonomous Community of Madrid) is sharply criticised by the referring courts at points in both requests for a preliminary ruling. They have now addressed a total of 16 questions to the Court to clarify their powers to penalise possible abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment relationships in accordance with Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work of 18 March 1999 (\u2018the Framework Agreement\u2019)."], "id": "698d55bb-dbaa-42f8-a73b-bd0d302f6d68", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["That is why Directive 2001/83 lays down precise rules governing the advertising of medicinal products. The resulting limitation on the freedom of pharmaceutical companies to conduct business is fully justified by what is an essential objective in EU law, namely, as already indicated, that of protecting . The provisions of Directive 2001/83 must therefore be read in the light of that objective."], "id": "5e0afe9a-8293-45e4-8f7b-f74ec3e6df94", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Although, in paragraph 39 of that judgment, the Court concluded that the advertising scheme at issue in that case was inconsistent and therefore unsuitable for ensuring the attainment of its objective relating to the protection of , on the ground that it included a prohibition on advertising for medical and surgical treatments on national television channels, while offering the possibility of broadcasting such advertising on local television channels, such a conclusion is clearly explained by the fact that, as far as advertising for such treatments is concerned, that objective of protecting public health was equally relevant whether such advertising was broadcast on national or local television channels."], "id": "c6a3993a-249f-4cb6-bddb-4c32642f8dfe", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["By virtue of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, the Member State of affiliation must bear the costs of that healthcare in the Member State of treatment, whereas in the case of Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2011/24, the obligations of the Member State of affiliation are simply to discharge the costs which its system would have had to bear anyway had the treatment been carried out in that Member State."], "id": "c910c854-6708-4f66-bb1a-8de286ae49fa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Member States may, to the extent justified by national security, public safety, , security of transport, protection of the environment, protection of biological resources and of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, safety of installations and of workers, planned management of hydrocarbon resources (for example the rate at which hydrocarbons are depleted or the optimisation of their recovery) or the need to secure tax revenues, impose conditions and requirements on the exercise of the activities set out in Article 2(1).\u2019"], "id": "774211a9-7635-4372-bd31-220262c4ed06", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["The French Government argues that the purpose of Article R. 4235\u201122 of the Code is, as its wording indicates, to protect the dignity of the profession of pharmacist. That purpose, it submits, contributes to the pursuit of the wider objective of protecting public health. Article R. 4235\u201164 of that code seeks to prevent the excessive or inappropriate use of medicinal products and, therefore, also works to protect public health."], "id": "5a133450-0a81-4002-bd65-d14f0fc07a84", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In my view, the alleged absence of a proven causal link between prohibiting paid referencing and preventing the risk that a significant number of pharmacies may disappear in isolated areas cannot, in itself, preclude the appropriateness of that prohibition for attaining the objective relied upon. According to the case-law, where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health \u2013 including, more specifically, risks to the supply of safe and high quality medicinal products to the population \u2013 the Member State in question is entitled to take protective measures without having to wait until the reality of those risks becomes fully apparent. In such a situation, that Member State may take the measures that reduce, as far as possible, the risks to ."], "id": "062ecd88-e411-4f50-9371-f64ebeeca3ee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Public Health", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from the case file submitted to the Court that the Decree of 28 November 2016 of the Minister for Social Affairs and Health on best practice in the dispensing of medicinal products in dispensing pharmacies, mutual pharmacies and emergency mining pharmacies referred to in Article L. 5121\u20115 of the Code (JORF of 1 December 2016, text no 25; \u2018the Decree on best practice in the dispensing of medicinal products\u2019) contains an annex, Section 7 of which, entitled \u2018Supplementary rules applicable to the electronic commerce of medicinal products\u2019, provides in its point 7.1, entitled \u2018Pharmaceutical advice\u2019:"], "id": "c7919277-358f-4759-816c-94ff7b2315ef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["In the Neurim judgment, the Court gave a teleological interpretation of Regulation No 469/2009. That interpretation undoubtedly lends flexibility to the SPC system and, in all likelihood, responds more fully to the current needs of pharmaceutical research, which seem to be different from those which led to the adoption of Regulation No 1768/92. There is no doubt that the development of subsequent medical uses of known substances plays a significant role in the context of these changes, a large proportion of the pharmaceutical research being focused on that sector at present, as Santen points out in its written observations. In addition, the interpretation adopted in the Neurim judgment permits sufficient legal protection to be granted to any innovation that increases the therapeutic efficacy of known active ingredients or uses them to treat new pathologies, in keeping with the objective of the continuing improvement in which is also among those pursued with the creation of the SPC."], "id": "4313431a-e8ed-41b2-a551-796b58bb9e40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public health", "masked_sentences": ["Alongside Regulation No 882/2004, rules on official controls are found in Regulation No 854/2004, which is part of the \u2018EU food hygiene package\u2019 \u2013 also comprising Regulations No 852/2004 and No 853/2004 \u2013 with a view to consolidating, simplifying and updating EU legislation on food hygiene requirements. Regulation No 852/2004 concerns general rules on the hygiene of foodstuffs, while Regulation No 853/2004 establishes specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin, their main objective being to secure a high level of consumer protection with regard to food safety. Article 5 of Regulation No 853/2004 assumes special importance here, since it generally prohibits operators from placing on the market a product of animal origin, such as meat, unless it carries a health mark applied in accordance with Regulation No 854/2004. That regulation lays down specific rules on official controls regarding meat and other animal products. As indicated by recital 4 of Regulation No 854/2004, one of its main objectives is to ensure the protection of and, according to recitals 8 and 9 thereof, official controls on meat are necessary to verify that operators comply with hygiene rules and, in view of their specific expertise, official veterinarians are charged with carrying out inspections and other tasks at slaughterhouses."], "id": "635571e4-00d3-404d-b666-0e3e9eacc08e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be observed, in the first place, that this reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Regulation No 2201/2003 which was adopted on the basis, inter alia, of Article 61(c) EC, now Article 67 TFEU, which is within Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, on the . Consequently, it may be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure."], "id": "1e49ee3c-0195-4921-8e82-1f27e11a2bef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his or her fingerprints taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States\u2019 law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes[, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 1)]; or"], "id": "54cd742d-751c-439f-848c-b340ec29dc78", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["33. It is apparent from recital 1 of Regulation No 2201/2003 that it contributes to creating an , in which the free movement of persons is ensured. Accordingly, with the objective of ensuring legal certainty, Chapters II and III of the regulation lay down rules on jurisdiction and on recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning the dissolution of matrimonial ties. (9)"], "id": "f26a00d9-33db-4081-ac8c-bd620e0b0edd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2008/115/EC \u2014 Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals \u2014 Conditions of detention \u2014 Article 16(1) \u2014 Detention in prison accommodation for the purpose of removal \u2014 Third-country national who poses a serious threat to public policy or public security)"], "id": "f97d933a-a195-4b95-86c1-20824223d027", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["As Advocate General Bot observed in his Opinion in Beshkov, that requirement \u2018is clearly linked to the attainment of the and thereby to mutual recognition, which requires not only that the foreign decision be taken into account but also that it be complied with\u2019. Framework Decision 2008/675 thus contributes, as the Court has held, \u2018to strengthening mutual trust within the European area of justice, in that it encourages a judicial culture in which previous convictions handed down in another Member State are in principle taken into account\u2019."], "id": "ed75ad9c-f00f-408c-9a13-81ae9553a66e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["To me, the application of such statements to potential requests for extradition from third States is uncompromisingly simple. The logic must be one of acting as \u2018a block\u2019. A decision barring any further prosecution for the same act in one Member State must have the same effects elsewhere within one and the same , in the same way that it would have within one and the same domestic legal system."], "id": "7751698c-ca88-4fa5-ab11-7634c3bff987", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["It was only with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or to be more precise, five years after that entry into force, i.e. primary law as it currently stands, that the Court obtained full jurisdiction with regards to the interpretation of the Framework Decision. As is well known, that treaty did away with the three pillar structure and constitutionalised \u2013 in the sense that now fundamental, supranational principles apply in this domain, such as the ordinary legislative procedure and the full jurisdiction of the Court \u2013 the ."], "id": "2e2e319f-8d5a-468a-9d82-33e4d9374ffa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, that framework decision seeks, by the establishment of a new simplified and more effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union of becoming an , and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States (judgment of 11 March 2020, SF (European arrest warrant \u2013 Guarantee of return to the executing State), C\u2011314/18, EU:C:2020:191, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "9a727636-e8e2-4686-8522-03021ac89819", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2008/115/EC \u2013 Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals \u2013 Article 5(a), Article 6(1) and (4), Article 8(1) and Article 10 \u2013 Return decision issued against an unaccompanied minor \u2013 Best interests of the child \u2013 Obligation for the Member State concerned to be satisfied, before the adoption of a return decision, that that minor will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return \u2013 Distinction on the basis solely of the criterion of the age of the minor in order to grant a right of residence \u2013 Return decision not followed by removal measures)"], "id": "e5469333-93bf-4a74-b7fb-16e2064ae821", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The principle of mutual trust requires, particularly as regards the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law (judgment of 17 December 2020, Openbaar Ministerie (Independence of the issuing judicial authority), C\u2011354/20 PPU and C\u2011412/20 PPU, EU:C:2020:1033, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "6cc83ceb-58e9-4a3f-b584-b6590808f5f3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In the procedural field, urgency is found in the situation where serious and irreparable damage could ensue if the situation is not swiftly remedied, and it allows courts to adopt certain measures under an expedited procedure. In EU law, and in particular in matters relating to the , the urgent preliminary-ruling procedure thus enables cases to be considered with a \u2018minimum of delay\u2019 where the individual concerned is held in custody."], "id": "f56a0f87-d684-4744-b746-9f3f07374c53", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2008/115/EC \u2013 Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals \u2013 Detention for the purpose of removal \u2013 Article 16(1) \u2013 Concept of \u2018specialised detention facility\u2019 \u2013 Article 18(1) \u2013 Concept of \u2018emergency situation\u2019 \u2013 National legislation under which detention may, because of an emergency situation, take place in prison accommodation \u2013 Scope of the assessment to be carried out by the judicial authority responsible for the detention)"], "id": "851ded78-00de-4509-bbf9-8ff56f965a77", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Asylum policy \u2013 Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status \u2013 Directive 2005/85/EC \u2013 Article 25(2) \u2013 Grounds for inadmissibility \u2013 Rejection by one Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible due to the earlier grant to the applicant of subsidiary protection in another Member State \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013)"], "id": "db945b35-148e-4b4c-9379-0e534f2ae765", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["First, the referring court suggests that the absence of a specific provision, in Framework Decision 2005/214, on the language regime of the decision to be enforced is due to its, by now relatively distant, date of adoption. The referring court submits that the (current) will of the EU legislature on this issue may be inferred from the provisions concerning language requirements that have been included in more recent legal instruments adopted in relation to the . In particular, the referring court points to the provisions of Directive 2010/64 and Directive 2015/413, which include certain obligations on the authorities of the Member States to provide a translation of the decisions whose enforcement is being sought."], "id": "4824cf41-342e-498a-ad16-8960237c1a88", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", "masked_sentences": ["It should be borne in mind that Directive 2003/109 is a key legal instrument within the so-called EU legal migration framework, which is part of the EU\u2019s common immigration policy in the . The EU legal migration framework comprises a set of directives which generally regulate the conditions for entry and residence of categories of third-country nationals and their rights following admission in the Member States. Equal treatment provisions are an important element of those directives, and promote one of the main objectives of EU immigration policy, which is to ensure the fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in the Member States."], "id": "813db4fc-cbd9-4569-a48a-1069ef1e4d66", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2008/115/EC \u2013 Return of illegally staying third-country nationals \u2013 Third-country national suffering from a serious illness \u2013 Return decision \u2013 Judicial remedy \u2013 Automatic suspensory effect \u2013 Conditions \u2013 Grant of social assistance \u2013 Articles 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)"], "id": "c15c5ea8-03ed-4416-ac04-f755c175721b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled at the outset that both the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and the principle of mutual recognition, which is itself based on the mutual trust between the latter, are of fundamental importance in EU law because they allow an area without internal borders to be created and maintained. More specifically, the principle of mutual trust requires, particularly as regards the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law (judgment of 12 December 2019, Openbaar Ministerie (Swedish Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office), C\u2011625/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:1078, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "795a8f3c-c75e-4f69-a8ae-f275ed79afa1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["28 The principle of mutual trust between the Member States is, under EU law, of fundamental importance as regards, in particular, the which the European Union constitutes and which, in accordance with Article 67(2) TFEU, ensures the absence of internal border controls and frames a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between Member States, which is fair towards third-country nationals. In that field, the principle of mutual trust requires each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2019, Ibrahim and Others, C\u2011297/17, C\u2011318/17, C\u2011319/17 and C\u2011438/17, EU:C:2019:219, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "d3d9df8b-eb95-4357-8e74-86a3d66f7499", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, it is apparent from recent case-law of this Court that Member States have different approaches to the scope of the principle of legality. Those different approaches may also resonate in their consideration of the different conditions for the application of instruments of judicial cooperation in the , in particular the Framework Decision. An interpretation of the provision at issue such as the one advocated by the Spanish and Belgian Governments and by the Procureur-Generaal (Prosecutor General) would risk coming into conflict with some of the national conceptions of the legality principle in a field where the Framework Decision itself does not provide an unequivocal answer."], "id": "c879f3b4-f6ce-448f-ba0e-a3a24023d22b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be stated, first of all, that the present reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584, which comes within the sectors covered by Title V of Part Three of the TFEU on the . Consequently, this reference can be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure."], "id": "9d124006-d536-4599-a709-d53044bc55e1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 \u2013 Chapter II, Section 5 (Articles 20 to 23) \u2013 Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment \u2013 Contract of employment concluded, in Member State A, between a worker domiciled in that State and an employer domiciled in Member State B, for work to be performed in Member State B \u2013 Unperformed contract of employment \u2013 Action brought by the worker against the employer to recover contractual remuneration \u2013 Exclusion of the rules of jurisdiction existing in the national law of the court seised \u2013 Article 21(1)(b)(i) \u2013 Concept of \u2018place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work\u2019 \u2013 Place where the worker was to carry out his work as agreed in the contract)"], "id": "7f9a282f-644b-427a-9b73-121bb7e8423c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters \u2014 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA \u2014 Recognition and enforcement of financial penalties imposed on legal persons \u2014 Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law \u2014 Scope \u2014 Concept of \u2018legal person\u2019 \u2014 Financial penalty imposed on an entity with no legal personality)"], "id": "5d9f3722-61e3-4bd2-81ec-64016a6730d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The creation of an within the Union is based on mutual confidence and a presumption of compliance by other Member States with Union law and, in particular, with fundamental rights. However, that presumption is rebuttable. Consequently, if there are substantial grounds for believing that the execution of an investigative measure indicated in the [European investigation order (EIO)] would result in a breach of a fundamental right of the person concerned and that the executing State would disregard its obligations concerning the protection of fundamental rights recognised in the Charter, the execution of the EIO should be refused."], "id": "d11c7eaa-8692-48ee-a06f-505a6e932400", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with Articles 1, 2 and Article 4a(1) of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the , annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom and Ireland are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.\u2019"], "id": "a2bc3262-44b9-4ee1-af1e-16c579ec8708", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["On possible scenarios regarding judicial review in the after Brexit, see Curtin, D., \u2018Brexit and the EU Area of Freedom, Security\u2019, in F. Fabbrini, The law and politics of Brexit, OUP, Oxford, 2017, pp. 183-200, at pp. 186 and 187, and Weyembergh, A., \u2018Consequences of Brexit for European criminal law\u2019, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 2017, pp. 284-299, at pp. 295-296. As regards preliminary references stemming from the UK, see Knaier, R., Scholz, M., \u2018Rechtsschutz in Gro\u00dfbritannien und der EU nach dem \u201cBrexit\u201d\u2019, Europ\u00e4isches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 2018, pp. 10-17, at pp. 15-16. Concerning dispute-settling between the EU and the UK in general, see Fennelly, N. \u2018Brexit: legal consequences for the EU. Dispute-settling between the EU and the UK\u2019, 18 ERA Forum, 2018, pp. 493-511."], "id": "27c6b765-fc00-4e54-ad49-ae63d39decfc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Such an interpretation is consistent with the objective of facilitating access to justice, guaranteed in particular by the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, which underpins the application of the provisions of the Succession Regulation and which is enshrined in Article 39 of that regulation, thus seeking, in the field of cooperation in civil and commercial matters, to strengthen a simplified and effective system of conflict rules, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions taken in the context of a succession with cross-border implications, with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective for the European Union to become an , founded on the high level of confidence which should exist between the Member States."], "id": "f2a2f4fa-f2de-4f24-b7e6-1c4fbad4f8bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["As the Court has consistently held, the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and the principle of mutual recognition are, in EU law, of fundamental importance given that they allow an area without internal borders to be created and maintained. More specifically, the principle of mutual trust requires, particularly with regard to the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law."], "id": "89fa6da1-88d1-4601-8e33-e703c6e28f36", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(References for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Community Code on Visas \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 \u2013 Article 32(1) to (3) \u2013 Decision to refuse a visa \u2013 Annex VI \u2013 Standard form \u2013 Statement of reasons \u2013 Threat to public policy, internal security or public health, or to the international relations of any of the Member States \u2013 Article 22 \u2013 Procedure of prior consultation of central authorities of other Member States \u2013 Objection to the issuing of a visa \u2013 Appeal against a decision to refuse a visa \u2013 Scope of judicial review \u2013 Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Right to an effective remedy)"], "id": "ace0b5c1-0df8-4210-8b79-f9f3002822a7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The principle of mutual recognition on which the European arrest warrant system is based is itself founded on the mutual confidence between the Member States that their national legal systems are capable of providing equivalent and effective protection of the fundamental rights recognised in the European Union, particularly those contained in the Charter. The principle of mutual confidence requires, particularly with regard to the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law."], "id": "96ded4bf-cba8-45bd-af9e-684541003203", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2008/115/CE \u2013 Return of illegally staying third-country nationals \u2013 Parent of an adult child suffering from a serious illness \u2013 Return decision \u2013 Judicial remedy \u2013 Automatic suspensory effect \u2013 Safeguards pending return \u2013 Basic needs \u2013 Articles 7, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)"], "id": "f8a9a2c9-de97-41bf-81f4-0ed086a4bf17", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["I will examine this position in two steps. First, I set out the conditions for the application of Protocol No 21 as stated in the Court\u2019s case-law, namely that its application depends on the legal basis of the measure in question (A). Secondly, I discuss whether the relevant provisions, namely Article 62(1)(b) and Article 185 of the Withdrawal Agreement and Part Three, Title VII, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, in particular Article 632 thereof, should have been based on a competence relating to the (B.1 and B.2)."], "id": "87a26d15-f75c-4ef4-b3a8-a8564b12b044", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Failure to fulfil obligations \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2013/32/EU \u2014 National procedure for examining applications for international protection \u2014 Article 6 \u2014 Effective access \u2014 Article 43 \u2014 Procedural safeguards \u2014 Article 46(5) and (6) \u2014 No suspensory effect of appeals brought against administrative decisions refusing to grant refugee status \u2014 Directive 2013/33/EU \u2014 Article 2(h) \u2014 Compulsory placement in transit zones \u2014 Definition of \u2018detention\u2019 \u2014 Directive 2008/115/EC \u2014 Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) \u2014 Return of illegally staying third-country nationals)"], "id": "dd106305-42ca-4cdb-95b2-2c288b9efdd9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Urgent preliminary ruling procedure \u2013 \u2013 Judicial cooperation in civil matters \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 \u2013 Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility \u2013 Article 10 \u2013 Jurisdiction in cases of child abduction \u2013 Child wrongfully removed to a non-Member State in which it has acquired its habitual residence \u2013 Best interests of the child \u2013 Retention of jurisdiction, for an unlimited period of time, by the courts of the Member State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before its wrongful removal)"], "id": "4e692d74-95f5-4008-9bee-5121c8b2bc27", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["36 As regards the objectives of Directive 2014/41, it is intended, as is apparent from recitals 5 to 8 thereof, to replace the fragmented and complicated existing framework for the gathering of evidence in criminal cases with a cross-border dimension and seeks, by the establishment of a simplified and more effective system based on a single instrument called the EIO, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union to become an , and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2020, Staatsanwaltschaft Wien (Falsified transfer orders), C\u2011584/19, EU:C:2020:1002, paragraph 39)."], "id": "70e0388c-c04b-4b1e-be59-3da4b0c78efb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Both the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and the principle of mutual recognition, which is itself based on the mutual trust between the latter (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 August 2017, Tupikas, C\u2011270/17 PPU, EU:C:2017:628, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited), are, in EU law, of fundamental importance given that they allow an area without internal borders to be created and maintained. More specifically, the principle of mutual trust requires, particularly as regards the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law (judgment of 10 November 2016, Poltorak, C\u2011452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e56184a6-6ce6-4b9c-a9c5-8ad1ebca3cd7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The creation of an within the Union is based on mutual confidence and a presumption of compliance by other Member States with Union law and, in particular, with fundamental rights. However, that presumption is rebuttable. Consequently, if there are substantial grounds for believing that the execution of an investigative measure indicated in the EIO would result in a breach of a fundamental right of the person concerned and that the executing State would disregard its obligations concerning the protection of fundamental rights recognised in the Charter, the execution of the EIO should be refused."], "id": "1c0a8900-862d-466c-963b-934fc546403f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["4 According to recital 1 of Regulation No 2201/2003: \u2018The European Community has set the objective of creating an , in which the free movement of persons is ensured. To this end, the Community is to adopt, among others, measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters that are necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.\u2019"], "id": "03b49f9b-735b-4ca8-9cb2-582575e25e57", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In the same vein, the references to the \u2018historical\u2019 background of Directive 2004/80, included in recitals 3 to 6 and 8, also suggest a larger scope of the directive. Indeed, the instruments referred to in those recitals were by no means \u2018internal market-focused\u2019. On the contrary, those instruments were mainly related to the pursuit of objectives which are more typical of the provisions relating to the (\u2018AFSJ\u2019). Accordingly, a directive which aims at protecting, albeit asymmetrically, all victims of crimes in the European Union, regardless of their nationality or residence, would seem more consistent with those objectives."], "id": "47feb917-5440-467a-9983-3e33094ea896", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["According to recital 10 of Decision 2017/866, \u2018in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the , annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application\u2019."], "id": "f4822005-5e47-40bc-a9df-557fea4577f8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In general, the benchmarks of the MCV are linked to and specify the requirement of the rule of law of Article 2 TEU, to which Article 49 TEU makes reference as a precondition for accession. According to Article 49 TEU, only States which respect the values of Article 2 TEU and which are committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the European Union. The preamble to the MCV Decision emphasises the central role of the rule of law for the Union and, in particular, for the , and the implied need for all the Member States to have an impartial and independent judicial and administrative system equipped to fight against corruption."], "id": "10ffcf2f-2744-462c-bd82-efdd6c4301b4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Urgent preliminary ruling procedure \u2013 \u2013 Judicial cooperation in civil matters \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 \u2013 Article 10 \u2013 Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility \u2013 Abduction of a child \u2013 Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State \u2013 Territorial scope \u2013 Removal of a child to a third State \u2013 Habitual residence acquired in that third State)"], "id": "c98893d2-ba90-4c05-a79c-50b4e7f7bf34", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be stated, in the first place, that this request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584, which falls within the fields covered by Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, relating to the . Consequently, this reference is capable of being dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure."], "id": "a1de8511-a4af-46c4-8181-db572a91b052", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Such an interpretation seems also to be more in line with the Court\u2019s case-law on the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust. The Court has consistently held that those principles require the Member States, \u2018particularly as regards the , \u2026 save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law\u2019. Thus, when implementing EU law, Member States may \u2018be required to presume that fundamental rights have been observed by the other Member States\u2019."], "id": "4e4ef5da-8003-4040-ba87-f29fb5652d21", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["39 As a preliminary matter, it should be recalled that both the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and the principle of mutual recognition, which is itself based on the mutual trust between the latter, are, in EU law, of fundamental importance given that they allow an area without internal borders to be created and maintained. More specifically, the principle of mutual trust requires, particularly as regards the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law (judgment of 12 December 2019, Openbaar Ministerie (Swedish Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office), C\u2011625/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:1078, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "b3a8ddeb-a7f3-4370-9309-9c9393713bfe", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, as is apparent from Article 3(2) TEU, within that , the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls and the prevention and combating of crime. In that context, Framework Decision 2002/584 seeks, inter alia, to prevent the risk of impunity of persons who have committed an offence (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 June 2017, Pop\u0142awski, C\u2011579/15, EU:C:2017:503, paragraph 23, and of 25 July 2018, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Conditions of detention in Hungary), C\u2011220/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:589, paragraph 86)."], "id": "803eb863-4cbc-44cb-97d1-b75ac03aa410", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that respect, Framework Decision 2002/584 seeks, by the establishment of a simplified and effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union of becoming an , and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States (judgment of 26 October 2021, Openbaar Ministerie (Right to be heard by the executing judicial authority), C\u2011428/21 PPU and C\u2011429/21 PPU, EU:C:2021:876, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "c115810a-af4e-4f23-8f56-6bd8701cc03d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["It must be observed, in the first place, that this reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, inter alia, the Agreement on the surrender procedure. The decision by which that agreement was approved on behalf of the European Union was adopted on the basis of Article 82(1)(d) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) TFEU. That agreement therefore comes within the areas covered by Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, on the . This reference for a preliminary ruling can therefore be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure."], "id": "3055f0bd-a4a2-4fdb-a186-5ce0dd256e08", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Contrary to the submissions of Mr Sd and Mr Sn, the reasoning of Advocate General Hogan with regard to the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) is not relevant to the present case. The European Union considers concluding that convention with reference to specific powers relating to the . Advocate General Hogan agrees with that approach. Under that premiss, the Istanbul Convention squarely falls within the scope of Protocol No 21."], "id": "5312b364-59ae-4884-a975-06880a29dcfe", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["25 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the cour d\u2019appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal, Versailles) found that the deceased had his last habitual residence in the United Kingdom and not in France. In that regard, it should be noted that, as can be seen from recital 82 of Regulation No 650/2012, the United Kingdom \u2013 in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the , annexed to the TEU and the TFEU \u2013 did not take part in the adoption of that regulation. Moreover, it does not appear that, as at the date of XA\u2019s death, the United Kingdom had made use of the option provided for in Article 4 of that protocol to notify its intention to accept that regulation. At that date, the United Kingdom, even though it was an EU Member State, was thus neither bound by Regulation No 650/2012 nor, as a result, subject to its application. For the purpose of interpreting Article 10 of that regulation, the view should be taken that the jurisdiction provided for in that provision may apply where the deceased had his or her habitual residence in such a Member State that is not bound by that regulation at the time of his or her death. Consequently, provided that the other criteria referred to in that provision are also met, it must be concluded that the situation at issue in the main proceedings is capable of coming within the scope of that provision."], "id": "f5e15ac0-90f9-4986-b416-0653194ed443", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that connection, it should be pointed out, first, that the present reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2016/343, which comes under Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty on the . It is therefore amenable to being dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 107 of the Court\u2019s Rules of Procedure."], "id": "74408584-b773-4376-b4a2-374031b28a03", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that connection, it should be observed that the present reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2016/343, which comes under Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty on the . It is therefore amenable to being dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 107 of the Court\u2019s Rules of Procedure."], "id": "895bdbd8-9c24-4aa6-bfeb-cb9b7ca28b24", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The objective set for the Union to become an leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice."], "id": "055bf73a-4e0c-4027-9f29-12469609bc07", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Judicial cooperation in civil matters \u2014 Law applicable to contractual obligations \u2014 Exclusion of company law from the scope of the Rome Convention and of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) \u2014 Trust agreement concluded between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership)"], "id": "4f4a84e8-3bb6-408f-966a-dd5543904b2d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The purpose of the Framework Decision, as is apparent, in particular, from Article 1(1) and (2) and recitals 5 and 7 thereof, is to replace the multilateral system of extradition based on the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 with a system of surrender between judicial authorities of convicted or suspected persons for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of conducting prosecutions, the system of surrender being based on the principle of mutual recognition. The Framework Decision thus seeks, by the establishment of that simplified and more effective system, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union of becoming an , and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States (judgment of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the System of Justice), C\u2011216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraphs 39 and 40)."], "id": "8778c918-283d-4f52-bcb3-8dbb352fedf5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted that both the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and the principle of mutual recognition, which is itself based on the mutual trust between the latter, are, in EU law, of fundamental importance given that they allow an area without internal borders to be created and maintained. More specifically, the principle of mutual trust requires, particularly as regards the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law (Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 191, and judgment of 27 May 2019, OG and PI (Public Prosecutor\u2019s Offices in L\u00fcbeck and Zwickau), C\u2011508/18 and C\u201182/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456, paragraph 43)."], "id": "d76b7bb7-2ec8-4a49-9b4d-e414026ce8dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["It should be noted, in the first place, that these requests for a preliminary ruling concern, inter alia, the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584, which falls within the scope of the fields referred to in Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty on the . They may therefore be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure."], "id": "81f11d13-4f85-4042-9847-779067de955b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters \u2014 Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 \u2014 Article 5(1) \u2014 Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract \u2014 Articles 15 to 17 \u2014 Jurisdiction over consumer contracts \u2014 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 \u2014 Articles 6 and 7 \u2014 Right to compensation in the case where a flight is subject to a long delay \u2014 Contract for carriage combining travel and accommodation concluded between the passenger and a travel agency \u2014 Action for compensation brought against the air carrier which is not a party to that contract \u2014 Directive 90/314/EEC \u2014 Package travel)"], "id": "24dda5a7-004a-4992-a038-743875683274", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["According to that court, it can also be argued that the return of the person concerned to the executing Member State, as soon as the custodial sentence or detention order has become final, may undermine the objective of seeking, pursuant to Article 67(1) and (3) TFEU, to ensure a high level of protection within an by measures to combat crime. The referring court observes in this regard that, if the Member State which issues a European arrest warrant for the purposes of criminal proceedings, as the Member State in which the judgment will subsequently be delivered, were to conduct confiscation proceedings in the absence of the person concerned, that Member State might be confronted with practical and evidential problems attributable to that absence, which might compel it to waive such proceedings."], "id": "33686697-5453-4936-b821-eac5797a307b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters \u2014 European arrest warrant \u2014 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA \u2014 Article 1(3) \u2014 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Article 4 \u2014 Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment \u2014 Obligation on the part of the executing judicial authorities to assess the conditions of detention in the issuing Member State \u2014 Scope of the examination \u2014 Criteria)"], "id": "9dbfdfed-d44b-45a9-99f5-c9978c1a2ea6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that the specific application of the ground for non-execution provided for in Article 4(5) of the Framework Decision must be left to the discretion of the executing judicial authority which, to that end, must have a margin of discretion, allowing it to carry out an examination on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all of the relevant circumstances and, in particular, the circumstances in which the requested person was tried in the third State, in order to determine whether the failure to surrender that person would be such as to undermine the legitimate interest of all of the Member States in preventing crime within the ."], "id": "3b1048b2-ee40-4980-b91d-beedfd2e868a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Judicial cooperation in civil matters \u2014 Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters \u2014 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 \u2014 Article 1(1) \u2014 Concept of \u2018civil and commercial matters\u2019 \u2014 Article 7(1) \u2014 Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract \u2014 Concept of \u2018matters relating to a contract\u2019 \u2014 Claim for payment of annual fees payable by a lawyer to a bar association \u2014 Legal obligation freely consented to)"], "id": "cfb9b2d0-f2ff-4ad0-b73d-55056fd5e6d0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, the Court has held that it is the legal basis for a measure which determines whether the protocol is to be applied, and not vice versa. In other words: Protocol No 21 only applies in respect of measures that have been, or should have been, based on a competence derived from Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty. Conversely, a measure that touches on the will not be covered by the protocol if it is not necessary to base it on such a competence."], "id": "0c22d05b-7512-4ec2-a4fe-384a59043867", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["9. Recitals 5, 6, 10 and 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 are worded as follows: \u2018(5) The objective set for the Union to become an leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice. (6) The [EAW] provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the \u201ccornerstone\u201d of judicial cooperation. \u2026 (10) The mechanism of the [EAW] is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) [TEU], determined by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) of the said Treaty with the consequences set out in Article 7(2) thereof. \u2026 (12) This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 [TEU] and reflected in the [Charter], in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to surrender a person for whom [an EAW] has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person\u2019s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.\u2019"], "id": "b8aa40bd-5206-4952-8d8c-4fe9c2570476", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["159 In that regard, as stated in recitals 2 and 3 of Decision 2006/928, the and the internal market are based on the mutual confidence between Member States that their administrative and judicial decisions and practices fully respect the rule of law, which requires the existence in all Member States of an impartial, independent and effective judicial and administrative system properly equipped, inter alia, to fight corruption (judgment of 18 May 2021, Asocia\u0163ia \u2018Forumul Judec\u0103torilor din Rom\u00e2nia\u2019 and Others, C\u201183/19, C\u2011127/19, C\u2011195/19, C\u2011291/19, C\u2011355/19 and C\u2011397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 159)."], "id": "ca85ed0c-66a7-4451-9bc0-780e4c2bc1e7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The following statements are made in the recitals of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA. The main motive for cross-border organised crime is financial gain. In order to be effective, therefore, any attempt to prevent and combat such crime must focus on tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscating the proceeds from crime. Differences between Member States\u2019 legislation in this area make that difficult. Thus, in the conclusions of the Vienna European Council of December 1998, the European Council called for EU efforts to combat international organised crime to be strengthened in accordance with an action plan on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam in the . However, the existing instruments in this area have not achieved to a sufficient extent effective cross-border cooperation with regard to confiscation as there are still a number of Member States unable to confiscate the proceeds from all offences punishable by deprivation of liberty for more than one year. Thus, the aim of the Framework Decision is to ensure that all Member States have effective rules governing the confiscation of proceeds from crime, inter alia, in relation to the onus of proof regarding the source of assets held by a person convicted of an offence related to organised crime."], "id": "7ac04d73-6150-4944-889d-bfff790541c1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA \u2013 Mutual recognition of financial penalties \u2013 Article 5(1) \u2013 Offence relating to \u2018conduct which infringes road traffic regulations\u2019 \u2013 Scope of the offence \u2013 Financial penalty imposed by the issuing State on the vehicle owner on account of a breach of the obligation to identify the driver suspected of being responsible for committing a road traffic offence \u2013 Article 7(1) \u2013 Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution \u2013 Scope of and procedures for the verification by the executing State vis-\u00e0-vis the legal classification of the offence)"], "id": "f32d4a0e-18a4-41fd-91f5-879a198cc61b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Article 25(1) of the CISA seeks to ensure a fair balance between, on the one hand, the security requirements imposed by an area without internal borders, such as the , and, on the other, the leeway enjoyed by the Member States as regards their migration policy. Member States enjoy some latitude as regards the grant of a residence permit to an individual in an irregular situation, thus retaining controls over the entry to, and residence in, their territory by third-country nationals. As the Court has held, the issue of residence permits for a period of more than 90 days is covered, for the most part, by the national legislation of the Member States. Accordingly, the primary objective of Article 25(1) of the CISA is to balance the interests of each of the Contracting States, the State issuing the alert and the granting State, by means of a consultation procedure and, where appropriate, to restrict the issue of residence permits to those based on a substantive reason."], "id": "3703ba7f-e460-4843-b1ae-02a54bcc2b9f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant seeks, by the establishment of a simplified and more effective system, directly between the judicial authorities, for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union of becoming an , and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States (judgment of 24 September 2020, Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof (Speciality rule), C\u2011195/20 PPU, EU:C:2020:749, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "d055f03c-0bc3-4e67-8fe5-462049f80c0c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["157 As is apparent from recitals 4 and 5 of Decision 2006/928, that decision was adopted in the context of Romania\u2019s accession to the European Union, which took place on 1 January 2007, on the basis of Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession, which empowered the Commission to take appropriate measures in the event of, respectively, imminent risk of serious breach of the functioning of the internal market linked to Romania\u2019s failure to honour commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations and imminent risk of serious shortcomings by Romania as regards compliance with EU law relating to the ."], "id": "4085b928-d2da-4622-94aa-6ffa7fef387c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["So far as concerns the teleological interpretation of Directive 2010/24, it should be borne in mind that that directive, while falling within the area of the internal market and not that of the , is based on the principle of mutual trust. The implementation of the system of mutual assistance established by Directive 2010/24 depends on the existence of such trust between the national authorities concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2018, Donnellan, C\u201134/17, EU:C:2018:282, paragraph 41)."], "id": "7346a9d4-52a9-4b83-88ad-4475e71b0bed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Since, as stated in paragraph 40 of the present judgment, Framework Decision 2002/584 is intended to establish a simplified system of direct surrender between \u2018judicial authorities\u2019 for the purpose of ensuring in the the free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, maintaining the independence of such authorities is also essential in the context of the European arrest warrant mechanism."], "id": "752f5fb4-14b2-40ee-bc68-943cdd4902fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["After pointing out that the two references for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584, which falls within the scope of Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty concerning the , and could therefore be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 107 of the Court\u2019s Rules of Procedure, the First Chamber of the Court noted \u2014 as regards Case C\u2011626/19 PPU, which the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) had requested be dealt with under the urgent procedure \u2014 that YC had been deprived of his liberty and that the question whether he could continue to be held in custody depended on the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings. As regards Case C\u2011566/19 PPU, the First Chamber of the Court took the view that, although JR had not been deprived of his liberty, the question raised in that case was intrinsically linked to those at issue in Case C\u2011626/19 PPU, with the result that, in order to fulfil the requirements of the proper administration of justice, it was appropriate for the Court, of its own motion, to deal with that case under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure."], "id": "b09684c8-22b2-48c4-864a-95c054c77ec5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession empower the Commission to take appropriate measures in the event of, respectively, imminent risk of serious breach of the functioning of the internal market linked to Romania\u2019s failure to honour commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations and imminent risk of serious shortcomings by Romania as regards compliance with EU law relating to the ."], "id": "52559a8e-2046-472e-93dd-583b575dcc2b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the exclusion in Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 is an exception which, as such, must be strictly interpreted. In relying on the objective of Regulation No 44/2001 of maintaining and developing an by facilitating the free movement of judgments, the Court has held that the exclusions from the scope of that regulation are exceptions which, like all exceptions, must be strictly interpreted (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 October 2014, flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines, C\u2011302/13, EU:C:2014:2319, paragraph 27)."], "id": "984286f7-e022-40ab-a137-4e67f3dffb78", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["A national court must take account of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, which, pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the , does not apply in the Member State of that court, in order to interpret the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, which is, by contrast, applicable in that Member State in accordance with Article 4 of that protocol."], "id": "db5b3f06-deb0-449f-ae8d-3715e2547190", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["However, Protocol No 21 to the TEU and the TFEU, adopted within the context of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007 and in force since 1 December 2009, provides that Ireland is not bound by EU measures related to the , unless that Member State expressly opts in to the measure in question. Ireland did not opt in to the relevant provisions of the two agreements concerned. Therefore, it will be necessary to examine whether, as a consequence of the United Kingdom\u2019s withdrawal from the European Union, Ireland needed to have opted in to the provisions relating to the European arrest warrant in order for those provisions to apply. That in turn depends on whether Protocol No 21 applies to those provisions."], "id": "07a49038-7ef2-45cc-a8bf-b8ad07b2e2d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, it should be observed that this reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584, which comes within the areas covered by Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, on the . The reference can therefore be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, pursuant to Article 107(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court."], "id": "0b84f55a-f4ca-4336-a7f2-4278b4c0634b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be recalled that, as can be seen from Article 67(3) TFEU, in order to achieve its objective of constituting an , the European Union endeavours to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws (judgment of 27 May 2014, Spasic, C\u2011129/14 PPU, EU:C:2014:586, paragraph 62)."], "id": "e6ceffcc-6879-4f28-b4ac-dffdc58432d5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["The [European] Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an , inter alia, by facilitating access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extra-judicial decisions in civil matters. For the gradual establishment of such an area, the Union is to adopt measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market."], "id": "bf86be59-8325-4ed2-9c81-9127824f0c1e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["25. Secondly, it should be noted that the principle of mutual trust between the Member States, which is of fundamental importance in EU law, requires, particularly with regard to the , each of those States, save in exceptional circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law. As is apparent from recital 26 of Regulation No 1215/2012, the system of recognition and enforcement laid down by that regulation is based, precisely, on mutual trust in the administration of justice in the European Union. Such trust requires, inter alia, that judicial decisions given in one Member State should be recognised and enforced automatically in another Member State. In that system, the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, which provide an exhaustive list (20) of the grounds on which the recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be opposed, must be interpreted strictly, inasmuch as they constitute an obstacle to the attainment of one of the fundamental objectives of that regulation. (21)"], "id": "ee32bc54-068e-44fe-857b-96c0d133cb64", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Protocol No 21 does not apply, however, if the European Union correctly based those agreements on its external powers to conclude a withdrawal agreement (Article 50(2) TEU) and an association agreement (Article 217 TFEU), rather than on a competence relating to the . A central element in that regard is the fact that those two surrender regimes do not create new obligations, in particular for Ireland, but merely extend existing ones."], "id": "60f7a789-45c3-4b1d-a238-43bb3990fd51", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["38. Decision 2007/533 has, in my view, similarly automatic effect, since it too contains rules establishing the competence of the Member State issuing the alert as regards the assessment of the circumstances forming the grounds for an alert in SIS II (Article 49(1) and (2) and Article 21) and the obligation to execute the action based on that alert incumbent on the authorities of the requested Member State (Article 39). Accordingly, it must necessarily be stated, as the Court held in the judgment in Commission v Spain, (15) that there is some degree of automaticity in the execution of the action based on the alert, the need for which is justified by the fact that such action gives expression to the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States which underpins the Schengen acquis and is essential to the operation of an integrated management system intended to ensure a high level of security in the of the European Union, which is the corollary of the freedom to cross internal borders within the Schengen Area."], "id": "6ad04e3e-0408-4a34-a21d-f236b58a534c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Above and beyond this, to oblige a Member State to take over the prosecution of a foreign national itself rather than extraditing him or her, would, in many cases, be at odds with obligations that Member State has under international treaties on extradition. Article 6 of the European Convention on Extradition 1957 allows contracting parties to refuse extradition of its nationals, provided, at the request of the requesting State, it submits the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate. No comparable provision exists in case a contracting party takes over the prosecution of a foreign national. As has been pointed out by several parties to the proceedings, international legal assistance in criminal matters, and in particular in the area of extradition, depends on the different contracting parties\u2019 confidence in one another. A further restriction on the extradition of alleged criminal offenders might lead to reluctance by other contracting parties in entering into agreements with Member States of the EU. This, however, cannot be in the interest of the European Union which, as is set out clearly in the recitals to the Treaty on the European Union, \u2018resolved to facilitate the free movement of persons while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by establishing an \u2026\u2019."], "id": "5a51e977-7909-4bf7-bfdb-ed565e34f877", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["At EU level, significant progress is being made in the establishment of an and, more specifically, in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. As Article 82(1) TFEU states, that policy is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and is to include the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States in a number of relevant areas. Directive 2012/13 is one of the instruments adopted, on the basis of Article 82(2) TFEU, within the context of the so-called Stockholm Programme. A number of proposals for new instruments of legislation in this area are currently being examined by the EU legislature, with a view to further strengthening the principle of mutual trust and increasing the degree of administrative and judicial cooperation between Member States\u2019 authorities."], "id": "7b0c311a-5685-423c-a86a-8a9be0bf181d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Border controls, asylum and immigration \u2013 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement \u2013 Consultation of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the examination of an application for a residence permit made by a third-country national for whom an alert has been issued in the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry \u2013 Article 25(1) \u2013 Schengen Borders Code \u2013 Entry conditions for third-country nationals \u2013 Article 6(1) and (5) \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 7 and Article 24(2) \u2013 Refusal to renew a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification on the ground that the applicant\u2019s identity cannot be established with certainty)"], "id": "81b68f43-cff6-4ef1-8285-bbd14b981cab", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, pursuant to Article 2(2) TFEU, one of the Union\u2019s aims is to \u2018offer its citizens an without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured\u2019. However, the noble dream of an area without internal frontiers can hardly be construed in a one-sided manner, whereby openness mandated from above is not accompanied by a correlating degree of responsibility and liability. It cannot be overlooked that an increase in the free movement of persons inevitably produces certain negative externalities or, to put it differently, has a social cost."], "id": "bacd928e-7156-42e2-9c36-ef5c5205a941", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["However, the ne bis in idem principle set out in both Article 4(5) of the Framework Decision and Article 3(2) thereof and in Article 54 of the CISA is intended not only to prevent, in the , the impunity of persons definitively convicted and sentenced; it also seeks to ensure legal certainty through respect for decisions of public bodies which have become final (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 May 2014, Spasic, C\u2011129/14 PPU, EU:C:2014:586, paragraph 77)."], "id": "156eac4c-b4a5-478b-bd61-5ca001d6c8d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the objective pursued by Article 54 of the CISA, it is apparent from case-law that the ne bis in idem principle set out in Article 54 of the CISA is intended to ensure, in the , that a person whose trial has been finally disposed of is not prosecuted in several Contracting States for the same acts on account of his or her having exercised his or her right to freedom of movement, the aim being to ensure legal certainty \u2013 in the absence of harmonisation or approximation of the criminal laws of the Member States \u2013 through respect for decisions of public bodies which have become final. Article 54 of the CISA should in this respect be interpreted in the light of Article 3(2) TEU, which states that the European Union is to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with regard to, amongst other matters, the prevention and combating of crime (judgment of 29 June 2016, Kossowski, C\u2011486/14, EU:C:2016:483, paragraphs 44 and 46 and the case-law cited). Specifically, it follows from that case-law that a person whose case has already been finally disposed of must be able to move freely without having to fear a fresh prosecution for the same acts in another Contracting State (judgment of 28 September 2006, Gasparini and Others, C\u2011467/04, EU:C:2006:610, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "4cb5e7dd-8d42-49b0-a1e2-3516ef8f9766", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", "masked_sentences": ["Article 50 TEU, Article 217 TFEU and Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the , annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 62(1)(b) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, read in conjunction with the fourth paragraph of Article 185 thereof, and Article 632 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, are binding on Ireland."], "id": "fa7dd663-5ce3-4502-873d-8a2779127026", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be borne in mind that Framework Decision 2002/584 seeks, by the establishment of a new simplified and more effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union of becoming an , and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States. The system of the European arrest warrant makes it possible to remove, as stated in recital 5 of that framework decision, the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the extradition procedures that existed before that framework decision was adopted. In accordance with Article 1 of that framework decision, the aim of the mechanism of the European arrest warrant is therefore to enable the arrest and surrender of a requested person, in the light of the objective pursued by the framework decision, so that the crime committed does not go unpunished and the person is prosecuted or serves the custodial sentence ordered against him."], "id": "a49a03b1-3bdc-4ed3-a2a9-aa2d1c6e680c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["According to settled case-law, the ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter and in Article 54 of the CISA, seeks to prevent, in the provided for in Article 3(2) TEU, a person whose trial has been finally disposed of in a Member State or in a Contracting State from being prosecuted, while exercising his or her right to freedom of movement, for the same acts as those on the basis of which a final penalty has been imposed on him or her in another Member State or in another Contracting State."], "id": "f40df049-bad5-4e1a-81af-92c7909fa415", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["It thus follows from settled case-law of the Court that Framework Decision 2002/584 seeks, by the establishment of a simplified and effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union of becoming an , and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States (judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant \u2013 Ne bis in idem), C\u2011665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "0062743f-1f42-4ead-aaf0-aeae4a94c42f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Border controls, asylum and immigration \u2013 Asylum policy \u2013 Directive 2013/32/EU \u2013 Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection \u2013 Application for international protection \u2013 Grounds of inadmissibility\u2013 Article 2(q) \u2013 Concept of \u2018subsequent application\u2019 \u2013 Article 33(2)(d) \u2013 Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible due to the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in a third State with which the European Union has concluded an agreement on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the States parties to that agreement \u2013 Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Norway)"], "id": "92d6184e-9b9c-426d-bdc8-351645966239", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his or her fingerprints taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States\u2019 law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the [OJ 2013 L 180, p. 1]; or"], "id": "e42115d5-d22c-49d7-8bc1-8e681a8c5c15", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", "masked_sentences": ["It should be borne in mind that Directive 2011/98 is a key legal instrument within the so-called EU legal migration framework, which is part of the EU\u2019s common immigration policy in the . The EU legal migration framework comprises a set of directives which generally regulate the conditions for entry and residence of categories of third-country nationals and their rights following admission in the Member States. Equal treatment provisions are an important element of those directives, and promote one of the main objectives of EU immigration policy, which, as stated in recital 2 of Directive 2011/98, is to ensure the fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in the Member States."], "id": "64e9377f-7236-4e3e-b98b-38429c413c0d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Actions for failure to fulfil obligations \u2013 \u2013 Asylum policy \u2013 Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU \u2013 Procedure for granting international protection \u2013 Grounds of inadmissibility \u2013 Concepts of \u2018safe third country\u2019 and \u2018first country of asylum\u2019 \u2013 Assistance given to asylum seekers \u2013 Criminalisation \u2013 Prohibition on entry to the border transit zone of the relevant Member State)"], "id": "08a66f8e-df66-4e5e-a308-981e75027221", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 5, 6, 10 and 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 are worded as follows: \u2018(5) The objective set for the Union to become an leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice. (6) The European arrest warrant provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the \u201ccornerstone\u201d of judicial cooperation. \u2026 (10) The mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) [TEU], determined by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) [TEU] with the consequences set out in Article 7(2) thereof. \u2026 (12) This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 [TEU] and reflected in the Charter \u2026, in particular Chapter VI thereof. \u2026\u2019"], "id": "c3f41aaa-9225-4214-81ad-905c702890c2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, the gravity of the situation concerning the KRS is confirmed by the following fact: on 27 May 2020 the Executive Board of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) adopted a Position Paper on the KRS\u2019s Membership of the ENCJ. In that paper the Board sets out the reasons for its proposal to the General Assembly to expel the KRS from the ENCJ (see https://www.encj.eu/node/556). The reasons are, in essence: (i) the KRS does not comply with the statutory rule of the ENCJ that a member council should be independent from the executive; (ii) the KRS is in blatant violation of the ENCJ rule to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, to defend the judiciary, as well as individual judges, in a manner consistent with its role as guarantor, in the face of any measures which threaten to compromise the core values of independence and autonomy; and (iii) the KRS undermines the application of EU law on the independence of judges and courts, and thus its effectiveness. In doing so, it acts against the interests of the European , and the values it stands for. The Board concluded that the KRS had committed serious breaches of the aims and objectives of the ENCJ as set out in Articles 3 and 4 of its Statutes, and was not prepared to remedy those serious breaches. I would point out that the KRS had already been suspended from the ENCJ on 17 September 2018 because it no longer met that body\u2019s requirements of being independent of the executive and the legislature in a manner which ensures the independence of the Polish judiciary."], "id": "d566b3c3-af58-440a-959a-6d0f2154726b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["That interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle under Article 50 of the Charter corresponds to its function of ensuring legal certainty in the . Member States are therefore not free, within the scope of EU law, to determine without restriction when further prosecution is definitive barred and thereby to retry persons who have been finally convicted or acquitted. Rather, when assessing whether further prosecution is definitive barred, they must take into account whether the ordinary remedies of their own legal system have been exhausted. If this is not the case, the ne bis in idem principle does not apply, owing to the lack of a final conviction."], "id": "cee064b2-eca3-4dd5-bc9d-f8288894032c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Area of freedom, security and justice", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2008/115/EC \u2014 Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals \u2014 Article 16(1) \u2014 Detention for the purpose of removal \u2014 Detention in prison accommodation \u2014 Third-country national representing a serious threat to public policy or public security \u2014 Principles of effectiveness and proportionality \u2014 Minimum safeguards \u2014 Possibility of detention in prison accommodation with persons held on remand \u2014 Article 15 \u2014 Judicial review \u2014 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Articles 1 to 4, 6 and 47)"], "id": "b83dfae4-56ba-4459-ae92-dd79aad58b8f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["See judgments of 2 March 2017, Eschenbrenner (C\u2011496/15, EU:C:2017:152, paragraph 36) with regard to free movement of workers; of 5 December 2013, Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinn\u00fctzigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs (C\u2011514/12, EU:C:2013:799, paragraph 26); of 28 June 2012, Erny (C\u2011172/11, EU:C:2012:399, paragraph 41); of 1 June 2010, Blanco P\u00e9rez and Chao G\u00f3mez (C\u2011570/07 and C\u2011571/07, EU:C:2010:300, paragraph 119) with regard to ; of 10 September 2009, Commission v Germany (C\u2011269/07, EU:C:2009:527); and of 8 July 1999, Baxter and Others (C\u2011254/97, EU:C:1999:368, paragraph 13)."], "id": "cab15c66-54f3-45e8-ba19-b58391a91d70", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU requires thus not only the elimination of all discrimination against service providers established in other Member States on grounds of nationality, but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national service providers and service providers from other Member States. This constitutes consistent case-law since the judgment of 25 July 1991, S\u00e4ger (C\u201176/90, EU:C:1991:331, paragraph 12). See, moreover, judgments of 18 July 2013, Citro\u00ebn Belux (C\u2011265/12, EU:C:2013:498, paragraph 35), and of 8 September 2009, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International (C\u201142/07, EU:C:2009:519, paragraph 51). In the judgment of 30 November 1995, Gebhard (C\u201155/94, EU:C:1995:411, paragraph 37), though that was a case on the , the Court referred not only to that specific freedom: \u2018national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty\u2019. My emphasis."], "id": "5d1ce2ae-faea-4c8d-99b7-9874966509c6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In some judgments, the Court has considered that once a measure has been qualified as a restriction, the lack of comparability might serve as a justification for its discriminatory effect. See, for example, judgment of 22 November 2018, Sofina and Others (C\u2011575/17, EU:C:2018:943, paragraph 42). In other judgments, however, the Court has examined the comparability of the situations as a condition to qualify a measure as a restriction. See, for example, judgment of 13 March 2014, Bouanich (C\u2011375/12, EU:C:2014:138, paragraphs 45 to 56), or of 4 July 2018, NN (C\u201128/17, EU:C:2018:526, paragraphs 31 to 38). Finally, in certain cases, the Court has twice carried out that examination: the first time, to qualify a measure as a restriction, the second time at the justification stage. See judgment of 17 September 2015, Miljoen and Others (C\u201110/14, C\u201114/14 and C\u201117/14, EU:C:2015:608, paragraphs 57 and 65) or, in relation to the , of 17 May 2017, X (C\u201168/15, EU:C:2017:379, paragraphs 42 and 50). In these situations, the first examination of comparability focused, in substance, on whether the persons concerned were subject to the same kind of tax treatment (which in fact amounts to examining not the comparability of situations, but the scope of the measure in question) and the second on the comparability of the situations having regard to the aim pursued by the national tax legislation at issue."], "id": "ae82307b-570e-40ab-b2f9-3057ae47eaff", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission considers that the question which must be asked in order to assess whether a national measure constitutes a restriction of the is whether an obligation pursuant to national law imposed on new operators \u2013 in this case a work permit for third-country nationals \u2013 creates obstacles to access to the market and whether it would deprive them of the opportunity to compete effectively with established operators. According to the Commission, a measure does not necessarily constitute a restriction within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU merely because the economic advantage and the incentive to engage in an economic activity are less than if the measure did not apply. Member States, in the absence of harmonisation, are in principle competent to regulate the exercise of economic activities on their territory and if a measure does not discriminate in law or in fact, it should only be considered a restriction of the freedom of establishment if it affects access to the market. In that regard, the Commission cites the judgment of 14 July 1994, Peralta (C\u2011379/92, EU:C:1994:296, paragraph 34), in which the Court stated that in the absence of harmonisation, a Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, technical rules which are specific to it and which are not necessarily to be found in the other Member States. According to the Court \u2018the difficulties which might arise for those undertakings from that situation do not affect freedom of establishment \u2026 Fundamentally, those difficulties are no different in nature from those which may originate in disparities between national laws governing, for example, labour costs, social security costs or the tax system\u2019."], "id": "26e42b2f-a20d-4eb2-8c9e-73da5c4d7bc2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018The rules on driving licences are essential elements of the common transport policy, contribute to improving road safety, and facilitate the free movement of persons taking up residence in a Member State other than the one issuing the licence. Given the importance of individual means of transport, possession of a driving licence duly recognised by a host Member State promotes free movement and of persons. \u2026\u2019"], "id": "70ce5c12-db1b-45b5-9e44-e1b7a93c4c92", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, the existence of an impediment to effective competition is not a necessary criterion under Article 49 TFEU. Thus in its judgment of 27 February 2019, Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Pe\u00e7o a Palavra and Others (C\u2011563/17, EU:C:2019:144, paragraphs 55 to 62), the Court held that the requirement to maintain a principal place of business in the Member State concerned constituted a restriction to the of a company incorporated under the legislation of a Member State. In that case, the Court \u2013 rather than finding a limitation of the possibility of competing (more) effectively \u2013 considered that the freedom of establishment encompasses the right to transfer the principal place of business of the company to another Member State, which requires, if that transfer entails the conversion of the company into a company subject to the law of the latter Member State and the loss of its nationality of origin, compliance with the conditions for incorporation laid down in the legislation of the Member State of relocation."], "id": "0a5586b1-caa0-43a0-a377-b47a08ae70be", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In those circumstances, the Court finds that Section 11 of the WRPA 1999, in so far as it makes, in principle, the full and automatic exclusion of pension rights from a bankruptcy estate dependent on the pension scheme in which those rights accrued obtaining prior approval for tax purposes, including those schemes established and tax approved in the home Member State of the EU citizen concerned prior to his or her move to the United Kingdom on a permanent basis, as in the case at issue in the main proceedings, is precluded by the rule of equal treatment laid down in Article 49 TFEU and, therefore, amounts to a restriction on the , which is prohibited by that article, unless justified within the meaning of EU law."], "id": "734a5725-120a-4640-8249-eb4e6623dd35", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging, respectively: (i) an infringement of the principles of non-discrimination, freedom to provide services and ; (ii) a misapplication of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and a manifest error of assessment relating to the proportionality of the aid; (iii) that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure; and (iv) an infringement of the obligation to state reasons within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU."], "id": "8ec9bc1b-9572-4aa8-9a56-195e746e039b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The link between the new rule of the DLV precluding participation of Mr Biffi in the national championships on an equal footing with German nationals is sufficiently proximate to the harm to Mr Biffi\u2019s business to bring the rule within the scope of Article 49 TFEU. Just as the Court has held that the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of nationality must be enforceable against private sector employers with respect to both employed workers and workers with a self-employed status under Article 49 TFEU, so too must organisations such as the DLV be responsible under Article 49 TFEU for actions that may impact adversely on the and discrimination on the basis of nationality which it precludes. If not, harm to the internal market results."], "id": "9b0959f4-60fd-49ac-a3dc-521d107a2e96", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["135. As regards the services for which the estimated value is below the threshold laid down in Article 4(d) of Directive 2014/24 and procedures that do not entail a choice within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, the enshrined in Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation, provided that that legislative measure pursues a legitimate objective recognised by EU law, and complies with the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, which is for the national court to ascertain. C. The third question"], "id": "7331ab23-b89e-4e4d-8f05-69582684f418", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["36 As for what are generally considered to be forestry activities, see Annex to Council Directive 67/654/EEC of 24 October 1967 laying down detailed provisions for the attainment of and freedom to provide services in respect of activities of self-employed persons in forestry and logging (OJ, English Special Edition 1967 (I), p. 287). See also International Standard industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC), Statistical papers, Series M, No. 4, Rev.4, United Nations, Section A. (\u2018Agriculture, forestry and fishing\u2019), entry 02 (\u2018Forestry and logging\u2019)."], "id": "17c2d488-ce11-48b5-abe6-fff05db01895", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["According to settled case-law, aims to guarantee the benefit of national treatment in the host Member State to nationals of other Member States and to companies referred to in Article 54 TFEU by prohibiting any discrimination based on the place in which companies have their seat (judgment of 26 April 2018, ANGED, C\u2011236/16 and C\u2011237/16, EU:C:2018:291, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "5dff4243-2ec1-4c88-9f19-6b32b862a70a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Electronic communications \u2013 Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Freedom and pluralism of the media \u2013 \u2013 Article 49 TFEU \u2013 Directive 2002/21/EC \u2013 Articles 15 and 16 \u2013 National legislation prohibiting an undertaking which has significant market power in a sector from establishing a \u2018significant economic dimension\u2019 in another sector \u2013 Calculation of revenues received in the electronic communications sector and the media sector \u2013 Definition of the electronic communications sector \u2013 Restriction to markets which have been subject to ex ante regulation \u2013 Account taken of the income of affiliated companies \u2013 Fixing of different income thresholds for undertakings active in the electronic communications sector)"], "id": "e1a24923-75da-41b6-9aa9-66ed2c3f1cfa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Indeed, the tax measure at issue in the main proceedings makes it less attractive for companies established in Gibraltar to exercise and they may, consequently, refrain from acquiring, creating or maintaining a subsidiary in the State which adopts that measure. As the Court has already explained, acceptance of the proposition that the Member State in which a resident subsidiary is established may freely apply different treatment merely by reason of the fact that the registered office of the parent company is situated in another Member State would deprive Article 49 TFEU of all meaning."], "id": "4fda780d-d653-4b2e-844d-9316bb1e17d8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The award of contracts concluded in the Member States on behalf of the State, regional or local authorities and other bodies governed by public law entities, is subject to the respect of the principles of the Treaty and in particular to the principle of freedom of movement of goods, the principle of and the principle of freedom to provide services and to the principles deriving therefrom, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of mutual recognition, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency. However, for public contracts above a certain value, it is advisable to draw up provisions of Community coordination of national procedures for the award of such contracts which are based on these principles so as to ensure the effects of them and to guarantee the opening-up of public procurement to competition. These coordinating provisions should therefore be interpreted in accordance with both the aforementioned rules and principles and other rules of the Treaty."], "id": "24121a6b-838e-41ae-afd7-6b9e34634bda", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Telecommunications \u2013 \u2013 Free movement of capital \u2013 Articles 49 and 63 TFEU \u2013 Directive 2002/21/EC \u2013 National legislation countering dominant positions \u2013 Calculation of revenues earned in the electronic communications sector and in the Integrated Communications System \u2013 Limitation of the electronic communications sector to markets forming the subject of ex ante regulation \u2013 Accounting for the revenues of affiliated companies \u2013 Differentiation of revenue thresholds as between companies active in the electronic communications sector and other operators \u2013 Article 11 of the Charter \u2013 Media freedom and pluralism)"], "id": "f5bc9d4c-6ae9-4b15-a07d-734024682277", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The Danish Government, in its answer to the question posed by the Court, agrees with the position adopted by the Commission outlined in point 41 of this Opinion. Moreover, it considers that the judgment of 5 October 2004, CaixaBank France (C\u2011442/02, EU:C:2004:586, paragraph 12) could be interpreted as requiring a serious obstacle to the pursuit of activities affecting access to the market in order to find a restriction of the . Thus, according to that government, given that Member States are, in principle, competent to regulate the exercise of an economic activity on their territory, if a measure is not discriminatory in law or in fact, it should only be considered as an obstacle to the freedom of establishment if it affects access to the market. The Danish Government considers that the judgment of 29 March 2011, Commission v Italy (C\u2011565/08, EU:C:2011:188) concerning maximum tariffs charged by lawyers demonstrates that national rules that do not affect the possibility of competing do not constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment pursuant to Article 49 TFEU. According to that government, if an operator has had access to the market, it must operate under the same conditions as other operators. Once an operator has had access to the market, it can be protected only against direct and indirect discrimination. The Danish Government therefore considers that the national measure in question in the main proceedings does not prevent new entrants from competing effectively with Danish maritime companies and that it does not constitute a restriction pursuant to Article 49 TFEU."], "id": "86c72a9b-7f5b-4599-b9aa-94bfd3dd418a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled that the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the and the freedom to provide services do not apply to a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 November 2016, Ullens de Schooten, C\u2011268/15, EU:C:2016:874, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited, and of 14 November 2018, NKBM, C\u2011215/17, EU:C:2018:901, paragraph 41)."], "id": "c0176fe3-7641-42f1-89a8-0e8ba734bf7a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, I would observe that it follows from settled case-law that a national measure restricting the free movement of capital or may be justified by the need to prevent tax evasion and avoidance where it specifically targets wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality and the purpose of which is to avoid the tax normally payable on the profits generated by activities carried out in the territory of the Member State concerned. The Court has also consistently held that the need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a restriction on the free movement of capital and recalled, in that context, that fiscal supervision is designed to combat tax evasion and avoidance."], "id": "67f72f12-8b43-4d9f-9ee3-3c536328980e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["A final factor that supports the assessment that the Administrative Committee system lacks proportionality has to do with the procedure operated by the Committees and the remedies against their decisions or absence thereof. The existence of an effective means of judicial review is called for by Article 47 of the Charter and is relevant in determining whether a restriction on the passes the proportionality test."], "id": "5bb4ef52-ab0c-4389-b9fe-98d46c8e35e8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the possibility of justifying the restriction of for an overriding reason in the public interest, the Government of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia contends that the general deductions are intended to encourage financial inclusion in rural areas and the establishment and effectiveness of credit institutions in Andalusia. In that regard, it is sufficient to state that such an objective cannot justify the limitation in granting favourable treatment, namely a deduction of EUR 200000 from the gross amount of the IDECA, solely to those credit institutions with their registered office in Andalusia, given that, unlike the number and location of agencies, the presence of only the registered office in a given territory does not seem capable of contributing to the coverage of that territory by local financial services. In any event, it has not been demonstrated that such a limitation would be necessary in order to attain those aims."], "id": "9948860e-ea23-4aaf-bac3-9717653754b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["89. Such an approach is, moreover, consistent with the Court\u2019s decisions in a line of cases involving national rules bearing similarities to Bulgarian legislation. I note in that regard that, in SGI, the Court examined, in the light of , Belgian legislation allowing the tax authorities to add back to the profits of a resident company, for the purposes of income tax, the notional interest on an interest-free loan granted to a non-resident subsidiary, on the ground that, even though the scope of that legislation was not limited to related companies, the situation at issue in that case concerned related companies. (36)"], "id": "40d8dd30-1b10-416a-a17f-7f271df674ea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Hungary contends, in the alternative, that the requirement that the institution concerned provide education in the State where it has its seat does not restrict the . The requirement is linked to the exercise of an activity, and not to the formation of companies. In particular, it does not prevent a foreign higher education institution from setting up, for example, as a secondary establishment, a branch in Hungary. Nor does it limit the choice of legal form of the establishment; it merely lays down, in the case of service providers already established in Hungary through a secondary establishment, a condition relating to the exercise of higher education teaching activities."], "id": "1bb44d9c-463f-46eb-870f-69d224db3d3f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be borne in mind that Article 49 TFEU precludes any national measure which, even if applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hinder or render less attractive the exercise by EU nationals of the guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, and that such restrictive effects may arise, inter alia, where, on account of national legislation, a company may be deterred from setting up subsidiary bodies, such as permanent establishments, in other Member States and from carrying on its activities through such bodies (judgment of 10 May 2012, Duomo Gpa and Others, C\u2011357/10 to C\u2011359/10, EU:C:2012:283, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "db1b2df5-c20d-4b16-a565-684a903bd285", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the MiFID, in particular Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 thereof, the provisions of the FEU Treaty on and freedom to provide services and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding a temporary prohibition on exercising the activity of financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings."], "id": "a44f409c-9a07-419a-9ad6-de4882dd6ffa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Second, according to the settled case-law of the Court, the definition of \u2018establishment\u2019 within the meaning of Articles 49 and 54 TFEU involves the actual pursuit of an economic activity through a fixed establishment in another Member State for an indefinite period and registration of a vessel cannot be separated from the exercise of the where the vessel serves as a vehicle for the pursuit of an economic activity that includes fixed establishment in the State of registration (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 July 1991, Factortame and Others, C\u2011221/89, EU:C:1991:320, paragraphs 20 to 22, and of 11 December 2007, International Transport Workers\u2019 Federation and Finnish Seamen\u2019s Union, C\u2011438/05, EU:C:2007:772, paragraph 70)."], "id": "b03d47a3-2c6f-4364-86df-f09432eb88fa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, if Article 65(1)(a) TFEU were to be regarded as forming, strictly speaking, a \u2018derogation\u2019, it would mean that the test to be applied in tax matters for identifying the existence of a restriction would differ according to the freedom of movement at issue, since, for example, in relation to the , it is established that the situations must be compared before a measure is classified as a restriction in this sense."], "id": "cfc64720-a3c5-4740-90ab-9679d5300854", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["(Infringement proceedings \u2014 Article 258 TFEU \u2014 Jurisdiction of the Court \u2014 Infringement by a Member State of obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) \u2014 Freedom to provide services \u2014 Directive 2006/123/EC \u2014 Article 16 \u2014 Article 56 TFEU \u2014 \u2014 Article 49 TFEU \u2014 Education services \u2014 Higher education \u2014 Service suppliers who are third-country nationals \u2014 Legal conditions for the supply of education services in a Member State \u2014 Requirement of an international treaty with the State of origin \u2014 Requirement of genuine teaching activities in the State of origin \u2014 Applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Article 13 \u2014 Academic freedom \u2014 Article 14(3) \u2014 Freedom to found educational establishments)"], "id": "79310278-f8cc-4412-829a-21e5aabd1131", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Obvious fetters to the \u2013 and indeed access to any market \u2013 are requirements provided for under national law to obtain authorisation to establish in a Member State or to pursue a particular activity. In that regard, it is settled case-law that a national rule which makes the establishment of an undertaking from another Member State conditional upon the issue of prior authorisation constitutes a restriction of the freedom of establishment pursuant to Article 49 TFEU, since it is capable of hindering the exercise by that undertaking of freedom of establishment by preventing it from freely pursuing its activities through a fixed place of business. I would note that such requirements may equally affect nationals or legal persons from the Member State of establishment. The Court in such cases, however, has not required the existence of discrimination in any form in order to find a restriction for this purpose."], "id": "4edd71f9-9525-4a23-86c0-1ae45d965965", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["That directive, as is apparent, in essence, from recital 1, seeks to ensure compliance, in the award of public contracts, with, inter alia, the free movement of goods, and the freedom to provide services, as well as with the principles deriving therefrom, in particular equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, and to ensure that public procurement is opened up to competition."], "id": "44444dd9-baed-4989-9da9-f7e155d4adbb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["As to whether, in a situation such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, Section 11 of the WRPA 1999, by precluding the exclusion of pension rights from the bankruptcy estate as provided for by that provision, constitutes a restriction on the laid down in Article 49 TFEU, it should be noted that that article confers on nationals of one Member State who wish to pursue activities as self-employed persons in another Member State the benefit of the same treatment as the host State\u2019s own nationals and prohibits any discrimination on the ground of nationality which hinders the taking up or pursuit of such activities. Any measure which, pursuant to any provision laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in a Member State, or as the result of the application of such a provision, or of administrative practices, hinders nationals of other Member States in their pursuit of activities as self-employed persons by treating nationals of other Member States differently from nationals of the country concerned is prohibited (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 June 1999, Meeusen, C\u2011337/97, EU:C:1999:284, paragraph 27)."], "id": "1acaf5ab-4904-44df-852a-6f9ce3ac81ba", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 4 and 49 of Directive 2011/83 are worded as follows: \u2018(4) In accordance with Article 26(2) TFEU, the internal market is to comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods and services and are ensured. The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance and off-premises contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity. \u2026 (49) Certain exceptions from the right of withdrawal should exist, both for distance and off-premises contracts. \u2026 The granting of a right of withdrawal to the consumer could also be inappropriate in the case of certain services where the conclusion of the contract implies the setting aside of capacity which, if a right of withdrawal were exercised, the trader may find difficult to fill. This would for example be the case where reservations are made at hotels or concerning holiday cottages or cultural or sporting events.\u2019"], "id": "b3b1d46a-bf28-4f8c-bf8d-0f3ff2231fb2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has stated that the registration of a vessel does not necessarily involve establishment within the meaning of the FEU Treaty, in particular where the vessel is not used to pursue an economic activity or where the application for registration is made by or on behalf of a person who is not established, and has no intention of becoming established, in the Member State concerned. However, where the vessel constitutes an instrument for pursuing an economic activity which involves a fixed establishment in the Member State concerned, the registration of that vessel cannot be dissociated from the exercise of the ."], "id": "452784dd-8202-415a-9076-5ec674bf5495", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["I would like to stress at the outset that the present case does not concern tax law, which clearly follows somewhat different rules concerning the concept of \u2018restriction of the freedom of establishment\u2019 pursuant to Article 49 TFEU. I refer to this line of case-law as the Commission noted in its observations that at times the Court does not refer to the test laid down in its judgments of 31 March 1993, Kraus (C\u201119/92, EU:C:1993:125, paragraph 32), and of 5 October 2004, CaixaBank France (C\u2011442/02, EU:C:2004:586, paragraph 11), but rather compares the effects of measures on national and non-national operators. As it happens, however, most taxation measures consist (in one sense at least) of restrictions on establishment since by definition the existence of even a generally applicable taxation measure impacts on the capacity of an undertaking to do business in that Member State. To that extent, therefore, the taxation cases may be regarded as sui generis so far as is concerned."], "id": "48ded6a9-d60b-4cba-9fb2-c9a4ebfc2572", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["It is settled case-law that Article 49 TFEU includes the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings under the same conditions as are laid down by the law of the Member State of establishment for its own nationals. On the other hand, all measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 49 TFEU must be regarded as constituting restrictions on that freedom."], "id": "c28bebbc-f6b9-4706-8a99-ffafa744b253", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["By contrast, as regards the 2014 tax year, the Administrative Court held that the action was well founded, and that the prohibition resulting from Article 164a of the LIR, which prevents a non-resident parent company established in another Member State from forming a tax entity made up of its resident subsidiaries, whereas that possibility is open to a resident parent company by means of vertical integration, is incompatible with the freedom of movement and referred to in Articles 49 and 54 TFEU."], "id": "2338e66c-511c-4dbb-a305-eed332f58ecf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Tesco brought an action before the F\u0151v\u00e1rosi K\u00f6zigazgat\u00e1si \u00e9s Munka\u00fcgyi B\u00edr\u00f3s\u00e1g (Administrative and Labour Court, Budapest, Hungary) contesting the decision of the Resources Directorate. Tesco submits that the obligation to pay the special tax imposed on it has no legal basis, arguing that the legislation relating to that tax adversely affects , the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital. Further, that legislation is contrary to the principle of equal treatment, constitutes prohibited State aid and is contrary to Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)."], "id": "54874ee0-b5eb-425a-861f-423785909ee9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Even if it were to be accepted that the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings has restrictive effects on the free movement of capital, such effects would have to be seen as an unavoidable consequence of any restriction on and they do not justify an examination of that regime in the light of Article 63 TFEU (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 May 2008, Lidl Belgium, C\u2011414/06, EU:C:2008:278, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "89b0117a-27c6-48a8-9324-b6ab2e986856", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Likewise, the Court has held that the safeguarding of the freedoms protected under Article 11 of the Charter, which in paragraph 2 thereof refers to the freedom and pluralism of the media, unquestionably constitutes a legitimate aim in the general interest, the importance of which in a democratic and pluralistic society must be stressed in particular, capable of justifying a restriction on (judgment of 3 September 2020, Vivendi, C\u2011719/18, EU:C:2020:627, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1b59b2f4-67fa-48e3-baa3-a826e4427e03", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["However, it follows from the Court\u2019s settled case-law that Articles 49 and 56 TFEU preclude any national measure which, even though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise by nationals of the European Union of the and the freedom to provide services guaranteed by those provisions of the Treaty (judgment of 10 July 2014, Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici, C\u2011358/12, EU:C:2014:2063, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "00fcb986-6927-4640-a85b-85c9783a1b7a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In order for tax legislation of a Member State to infringe the of companies, it must result in a difference in treatment to the detriment of the companies exercising that freedom; that difference in treatment must relate to objectively comparable situations and must not be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest or proportionate to that objective."], "id": "396b2a12-3c7a-48dc-b2e7-4e02aa5107fb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 23 to 26 and 61 of Directive 2009/73 state: \u2018(3) The freedoms which the Treaty guarantees the citizens of the Union \u2013 inter alia, the free movement of goods, the and the freedom to provide services \u2013 are achievable only in a fully open market, which enables all consumers freely to choose their suppliers and all suppliers freely to deliver to their customers. (4) However, at present, there are obstacles to the sale of gas on equal terms and without discrimination or disadvantages in the Community. In particular, non-discriminatory network access and an equally effective level of regulatory supervision in each Member State do not yet exist. \u2026 (8) Only the removal of the incentive for vertically integrated undertakings to discriminate against competitors as regards network access and investment can ensure effective unbundling. Ownership unbundling, which implies the appointment of the network owner as the system operator and its independence from any supply and production interests, is clearly an effective and stable way to solve the inherent conflict of interests and to ensure security of supply. For that reason, the European Parliament, in its resolution of 10 July 2007 on prospects for the internal gas and electricity market [(OJ 2008 C 175 E, p. 206),] referred to ownership unbundling at transmission level as the most effective tool by which to promote investments in infrastructure in a non-discriminatory way, fair access to the network for new entrants and transparency in the market. \u2026 \u2026 (14) Where, on 3 September 2009, an undertaking owning a transmission system is part of a vertically integrated undertaking, Member States should therefore be given a choice between ownership unbundling and setting up a system operator or transmission operator which is independent from supply and production interests. \u2026 (16) The full effectiveness of the independent system operator or independent transmission operator solutions should be ensured by way of specific additional rules. The rules on the independent transmission operator provide an appropriate regulatory framework to guarantee fair competition, sufficient investment, access for new market entrants and the integration of gas markets. Effective unbundling through the independent transmission operator provisions should be based on a pillar of organisational measures and measures relating to the governance of transmission system operators and on a pillar of measures relating to investment, connecting new production capacities to the network and market integration through regional cooperation. The independence of the transmission operator should also, inter alia, be ensured through certain \u201ccooling-off\u201d periods during which no management or other relevant activity giving access to the same information as could have been obtained in a managerial position is exercised in the vertically integrated undertaking. The independent transmission operator model of effective unbundling is in line with the requirements laid down by the European Council at its meeting on 8 and 9 March 2007. \u2026 (23) Further measures should be taken in order to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory tariffs for access to transport. Those tariffs should be applicable to all users on a non-discriminatory basis. Where a storage facility, linepack or ancillary service operates in a sufficiently competitive market, access could be allowed on the basis of transparent and non-discriminatory market-based mechanisms. (24) It is necessary to ensure the independence of storage system operators in order to improve third-party access to storage facilities that are technically and/or economically necessary for providing efficient access to the system for the supply of customers. \u2026 (25) Non-discriminatory access to the distribution network determines downstream access to customers at retail level. \u2026 To create a level playing field at retail level, the activities of distribution system operators should therefore be monitored so that they are prevented from taking advantage of their vertical integration as regards their competitive position on the market, in particular in relation to household and small non-household customers. (26) Member States should take concrete measures to assist the wider use of biogas and gas from biomass, the producers of which should be granted non-discriminatory access to the gas system, provided that such access is compatible with the relevant technical rules and safety standards on an ongoing basis. \u2026 (61) Under Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks [and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36)], the [European] Commission may adopt Guidelines to achieve the necessary degree of harmonisation. Such Guidelines, which constitute binding implementing measures, are, also with regard to certain provisions of this Directive, a useful tool which can be adapted quickly where necessary.\u2019"], "id": "bbac50ee-8e73-4320-966f-7183352cf2df", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, although Article 345 TFEU, relied on by the referring court, lays down the principle of the neutrality of the Treaties with regard to the system of property ownership in the Member States, it does not, however, have the effect of exempting the systems of property ownership existing in the Member States from the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty. Thus, although that provision does not call into question the Member States\u2019 right to establish a system for the acquisition of immovable property which lays down specific measures applying to transactions concerning agricultural and forestry land, such a system remains subject inter alia to the principle of non-discrimination, and to the rules relating to and free movement of capital (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 March 2018, SEGRO and Horv\u00e1th, C\u201152/16 and C\u2011113/16, EU:C:2018:157, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e7899d30-323c-403d-93c9-f19fa705b689", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, in the contested decision, the Commission examined whether the implementation of the aid scheme at issue was compatible with the fundamental freedoms of movement and in particular with the free movement of capital and the . In that regard, it noted that none of the eligibility criteria, and in particular those relating to the systemic or strategic importance of the beneficiaries for the Spanish economy and the fact that their principal places of business must be located in Spain, cannot be interpreted or applied as making the benefit of the aid subject to the transfer to Spain of their activities carried out in another Member State (paragraphs 46, 59 and 60 of the contested decision). The applicant does not dispute that assessment."], "id": "1780a678-e5d4-489f-b7df-29a888491553", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Any other interpretation would fall foul of the very wording of the provisions of EU law on , which are, inter alia, aimed at ensuring that foreign nationals are treated in the host Member State in the same way as nationals of that State (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 March 2004, de Lasteyrie du Saillant, C\u20119/02, EU:C:2004:138, paragraph 42, and of 12 June 2018, Bevola and Jens W. Trock, C\u2011650/16, EU:C:2018:424, paragraph 16)."], "id": "0d099279-9b30-4e0a-943e-6550fd9e627e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the interpretation of Article 14(6) of Directive 2006/123 in the light of the objectives thereof, it must be noted that, according to recital 12, that directive seeks to create a legal framework to ensure the and the free movement of services between the Member States. However, the influence on the decision-making process exercised by the competitors of an applicant for a commercial operating permit, even if they do not take part in the voting on the permit application, is such as to impede or render less attractive the exercise of those fundamental freedoms. Those competitors might seek to delay the adoption of necessary decisions, propose excessive restrictions or obtain important competitive information."], "id": "d71f73a3-bded-481a-873e-d7ec0614720f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["I therefore consider that there is no evidence in the file before the Court that the aim pursued by the legislation in question put forward by the referring court for justifying pursuant to Article 52(1) TFEU on grounds of public health restrictions on the is appropriate in that regard and that, in any event, even if there were, this goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective in question. For all the reasons stated elsewhere in this Opinion, I take the view that the legislation fails to meet any clear public health objectives and, in any event, the means adopted are manifestly disproportionate for any such purpose."], "id": "0d704cf2-eac2-4f7a-9c3b-6cce66fdb0ef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["FCB put forward five pleas in support of its action. The first plea in law alleged infringement of Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, and of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the decision at issue had failed to take account of the fact that the measure at issue infringed the . The second plea alleged infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission had committed an error of assessment as to the existence of an advantage, and of the principle of sound administration in the examination of the existence of that advantage. The third plea alleged infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. The fourth plea alleged infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission had not taken into account the fact that the measure at issue was justified by the internal logic of the tax system. Lastly, the fifth plea alleged infringement of Article 108 TFEU, in that the Commission had ordered the recovery of existing aid and had failed to comply with the procedure laid down for that type of aid."], "id": "4c27930c-871b-42c4-a299-733be318744b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it has to be said that one of the eligibility criteria, that of holding a Swedish licence, results in a difference in treatment for airlines whose principal place of business is in Sweden, so as to be able to benefit from a loan guaranteed by the State, and for those whose principal place of business is in another Member State and which operate in Sweden, to Sweden and from Sweden under the freedom to provide services and the , which are not so entitled."], "id": "70583e63-1bb9-48b2-86cf-b40b90e9f441", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["22 The Commission recalled that a measure which derogates from the reference system could still be justified by the nature or overall structure of that system and that it was for the Member State concerned to show that such justification exists. The United Kingdom claimed, first, that the exemptions at issue aimed to ensure that the system was manageable and administrable and, second, that they ensured within the European Union."], "id": "cca6ec2e-08dc-4df4-a49b-b2569aa16216", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["96. I would point out at this stage of my analysis that the Court has abundant case-law tackling that issue, from the point of view of both the free movement of capital and the . Specifically, in a line of cases involving facts similar to those in the main proceedings, the Court held that national legislation under which a non-resident company is taxed, by means of tax withheld at source by a resident company, on the interest which it is paid by the latter without it being possible to deduct expenses, such as interest expenditure, that are directly related to the lending at issue, whereas such a possibility of deduction is accorded to resident companies receiving interest from another resident company, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment. (41) The same conclusion was reached with regard to the free movement of capital. (42)"], "id": "ab9ac119-1ad3-42c2-8d58-9383a8e6b318", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Articles 9 to 13 of Directive 2006/123 impose requirements on Member States which must be met by their respective national laws where the service activity is subject to authorisation. As has already been held with regard to Article 14 of that directive, which establishes a list of requirements that are\u2018prohibited\u2019 within the framework of the exercise of , the Court considers that Articles 9 to 13 of Directive 2006/123 provide for exhaustive harmonisation concerning the services falling within their scope (see, that effect, judgment of 14 July 2016, Promoimpresa and Others, C\u2011458/14 and C\u201167/15, EU:C:2016:558, paragraphs 60 and 61)."], "id": "bcf05eb7-cf56-4a01-b866-9cba130d9a1d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be observed that it is settled case-law that the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the do not apply to situations which are confined in all respects within a single Member State. Moreover, in order for Article 49 TFEU to apply in relation to public procurement activities in respect of which all the relevant elements are confined to a single Member State, it is necessary for the contract at issue in the main proceedings to be of certain cross-border interest."], "id": "9b4b872d-a190-41e4-a2a0-1c6b0e4d8f22", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In a similar vein, fifthly and crucially, the Court has (quite rightly) not resorted to Keck and Mithouard when it could have done so in interpreting the of a service provider in the context of the Services Directive. In X and Visser, it found that a measure which would undoubtedly have constituted a \u2018selling arrangement\u2019 in the sense of Keck and Mithouard nevertheless falls within the scope of the freedom of establishment under the Services Directive, thereby \u2018representing a move away from the ideas that led to the decision in Keck\u2019."], "id": "49950b37-bbea-49f0-b0dd-b4fbb8541230", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In my view, this logic casts doubt on the validity of the Commission\u2019s argument that if there were any cross-border element in the case and if the provision of German law at issue were applicable, Article 49 TFEU could be relied upon, since this would mean that the same facts could be assessed in terms of compliance both with Directive 2006/123 and with Article 49 TFEU. In my opinion, this would be contrary to the intention of the EU legislature, which, in adopting that directive, sought to regulate in relation to service activities comprehensively. In other words, all those types and aspects of freedom of establishment which fall within the scope of the directive can no longer be assessed in the light of Article 49 TFEU."], "id": "647dc774-fa03-42a5-8f60-33e654f12311", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, it must be examined, secondly, whether the restriction of entailed by the unconditional right of pre-emption granted to the pharmacists employed by a municipal pharmacy, where that pharmacy is sold by tender, is appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective pursued and, if so, whether that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, that is to say whether there are measures less restrictive of the freedom enshrined in Article 49 TFEU which would enable the objective to be attained just as effectively (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 May 2009, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others, C\u2011171/07 and C\u2011172/07, EU:C:2009:316, paragraphs 25 and 52)."], "id": "05b3412d-bfe5-4c41-bcc8-31eb244fa3ed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["11 Judgment of 15 May 2008 (C\u2011414/06, EU:C:2008:278). The Court ruled that Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company established in a Member State cannot deduct from its tax base losses of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the taxation of the income of that permanent establishment in future accounting periods. The Court reached that conclusion after having found that the tax regime at issue, which allowed such losses to be deducted when they were incurred by resident permanent establishments, involved a restriction on the that was justified by overriding reasons in the public interest."], "id": "6fd1dc27-8069-4135-aa0b-13415d4af2fc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["According to the Commission, a high degree of independence of veterinary surgeons and the protection of public health may be obtained by measures less restrictive than the requirement that veterinary surgeons must hold 100% of the voting rights in companies of veterinary surgeons, which constitutes a disproportionate restriction of . The Commission considers that, if veterinary surgeons are able to exercise a decisive influence by holding enough shares to ensure that they control the company of veterinary surgeons concerned, non-veterinary surgeons cannot be prohibited from having a limited holding in such a company, not blocking such control."], "id": "8035e9d0-56b1-47bc-8078-1a387cec8979", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["41. Answering those questions is like venturing through a labyrinth of different legal problems. To make it easier, I will break it down into four separate issues. As a preliminary point, it is necessary to establish the nature of the social services at issue in the main proceedings in order to determine whether they are to be classified as \u2018economic activities\u2019 under the EU public procurement rules. Next, I shall analyse the conditions of applicability of Directive 2014/24. Then, I shall turn to examining the \u2018simplified regime\u2019 laid out in Articles 74 to 77 of that directive and, lastly, the rules of enshrined in Article 49 TFEU."], "id": "8f400411-c9c2-4008-b3b6-f9eefa161924", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["It must be borne in mind that the reduction in tax revenue cannot be regarded as an overriding reason in the public interest which may be relied on to justify a measure which is in principle contrary to a fundamental freedom (see, inter alia, judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer, C\u2011446/03, EU:C:2005:763, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). A finding to the contrary would amount to allowing the Member States to restrict, on the basis of that ground, the ."], "id": "86deee3d-5796-4644-b49f-d1b7bad08a4e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["A restriction of may be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. Justifications can be the preservation of the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States (point 34 et seq.) and the avoidance of double use of losses (point 46 et seq.). In addition, the measure (here non-allowance of losses previously sustained abroad) must be proportionate, that is, appropriate to ensuring the attainment of its objective and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it (point 50 et seq.)."], "id": "d4fc5536-97e7-45bf-8114-c309d7fbefa1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In support of its action, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law, alleging (i) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination, freedom to provide services and , (ii) infringement of the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and on the maintenance of undistorted competition, (iii) the incorrect classification of the measure at issue as an aid scheme, (iv) infringement of the applicant\u2019s procedural rights and (v) infringement of the obligation to state reasons."], "id": "dee70f26-3912-4d98-91f0-7c33f34c4eae", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In my view, while the Kraus test is very broad in scope, the effect on the of the requirement under national law that third-country nationals hold a work permit is on its own too indirect as to constitute a restriction of that freedom. I therefore do not consider that the measures in question, which appear, subject to verification by the referring court, to temper or render more flexible those national rules, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment in the absence of any evidence in the file before the Court of any additional restrictive effect on establishment resulting from the 25-call rule in particular."], "id": "796ade21-e83a-4e01-b3f1-f656be7b3859", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Brussels Securities has also argued, both at national level and before the Court, that this order of deduction contravenes the provided for by Article 49 TFEU. I propose, however, to leave that issue to one side, as the Belgian Government and the Commission have done. It is apparent from the order for reference that this argument was connected with a submission \u2013 rejected by the referring court \u2013 that the Belgian constitution has been infringed. Furthermore, the question submitted to the Court does not refer, even by implication, to Article 49 TFEU, and it does not seem to me that interpreting that provision would assist the national court to determine the case before it, in the sense in which that expression has been used in settled case-law of the Court (see, inter alia, judgment of 19 December 2018, AREX CZ (C\u2011414/17, EU:C:2018:1027, paragraphs 34 and 35))."], "id": "81cfee34-60fb-4892-a0bc-ec83f416141a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["107. Secondly, when the Member States make use of the option provided for in Article 20 of Directive 2014/24, they must respect, inter alia, , as well as the principles deriving from that freedom, such as the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. (102) As to the social services at issue in the main proceedings whose users are persons with functional diversity, it is for the referring court to determine whether the conditions set out in the national legislation are necessary and appropriate for ensuring the integration of those persons, as required by Article 20(1) of Directive 2014/24. Moreover, it is worth noting that the Court has already held that when the Member States limit reserved contracts to voluntary associations, the principle of equality is not, in essence, infringed. (103) (2) Reserved contracts under Article 77 of Directive 2014/24"], "id": "f09b3094-0c8c-4d08-be3e-437762bab23e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court notes that Mr M and Others have submitted in that regard that it is unnecessary to show that those provisions of national law are liable to have a deterrent effect on or that what was required was a comparison between the position of the migrant worker in the host Member State and in the home Member State."], "id": "913890cf-5d6c-49eb-b7d0-c6892b793585", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (High Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia, Spain)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Public procurement \u2013 Articles 49 and 56 TFEU \u2013 and freedom to provide services \u2013 Economic activity \u2013 Directive 2014/24/EU \u2013 Article 1(2), Article 2(1) and Article 4(d) \u2013 Conditions of applicability \u2013 Article 20(1) and Article 77 \u2013 Reserved contracts \u2013 Articles 74 to 76 and Annex XIV \u2013 Provision of social services \u2013 Public procurement in the field of social services \u2013 Simplified regime \u2013 Contractual action agreements to provide such services \u2013 Exclusion of profit-making entities \u2013 Principles of transparency, equality and proportionality \u2013 Tender condition \u2013 Geographical limitation \u2013 Directive 2006/123/EC \u2013 Scope ratione materiae \u2013 Article 2(2)(j) \u2013 Exclusion of social services)"], "id": "30316f03-64c8-403e-b473-9a702384969a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Is the fact that taxable persons under foreign ownership which operate a number of retail establishments through a single company and which are engaged in store retail trade in fact have to pay the special tax corresponding to the highest band of a steeply progressive tax rate, whereas taxable persons under domestic ownership operating as a franchise under a single banner \u2014 through stores which generally constitute independent companies \u2014 are in fact included in the exempt band or are subject to one of the lower tax rates following that band, with the result that the proportion of the tax paid by companies under foreign ownership of the total tax collected through the special tax is substantially higher than in the case of taxable persons under domestic ownership, compatible with the provisions of the FEU Treaty governing the principles of non-discrimination (Articles 18 TFEU and 26 TFEU), (Article 49 TFEU), equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU), equal treatment as regards financial participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54 TFEU (Article 55 TFEU), freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), free movement of capital (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU) and equality of taxation of companies (Article 110 TFEU)?"], "id": "cd3422fa-d839-444e-b558-531dddcd9402", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["27 That said, since that question submitted for a preliminary ruling refers to the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating both to and to the free movement of capital, it is necessary to determine which freedom is applicable in the main proceedings (see judgment of 6 March 2018, SEGRO and Horv\u00e1th, C\u201152/16 and C\u2011113/16, EU:C:2018:157, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "48829f91-0166-481a-bf11-b18884ff054f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["If that were the case, Vivendi\u2019s in Italy would be adversely affected by the application of the provision at issue, since the fact of attributing to it the revenues of \u2018affiliated\u2019 companies (like Mediaset) whose commercial strategy it is not in a position to exert an influence over would diminish the opportunity for it to establish itself in the SIC."], "id": "d2623ac9-15c6-4546-8218-34191d13adaf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["It is, however, necessary to determine whether legislation such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991 is appropriate to the attainment of that objective and, if so, whether the restriction on goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued, that is to say, whether there are less restrictive measures by means of which that objective could be achieved."], "id": "8b33e714-6042-4b88-8286-d86e15c975bd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["According to the Commission, the requirement that the higher education institutions concerned must, under Article 76(1)(b) of the Law on higher education, satisfy specific conditions in the Member State in which they have their seat in order to be able to establish another institution in Hungary constitutes a restriction on the within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU."], "id": "31f7468e-a920-4d97-855f-e04a393b9483", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["25. ASADE argues that Decree 181/2017 and certain provisions of Law 5/1997 are contrary to, first, the enshrined in Article 49 TFEU, second, Directive 2014/24, in that those norms do not respect the principle of equal treatment between economic operators, and, third, Article 15(2) of the Services Directive. Moreover, in its view, the restriction on freedom of establishment brought about by the national legislation at issue is not justified on grounds of public interest. ASADE observes that the national legislation at issue is not confined to the areas of health and social security, but covers all types of social services and applies to all non-profit organisations and not solely to voluntary associations. (15) In its submission, this means that the exceptions to the application of EU public procurement rules that were established in the Court\u2019s case-law (16) are not applicable to the case at hand."], "id": "2bab88a0-37bc-4dca-a426-0ddf019b7e36", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, the appellants suffered indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality vis-\u00e0-vis depositors with the Greek branches. In particular, first, that discrimination is contrary to . Second, a vague risk that a haircut in the deposits held in the Greek branches might have triggered a deposit flight in Greece cannot justify discriminatory treatment. Third, the support given by the Euro Group to the PSI despite the risk of contagion to La\u00efki and BoC shows that the appellants are discriminated against vis-\u00e0-vis depositors and shareholders of Greek banks."], "id": "11368752-5654-4b95-8758-117cb9094caf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that the enshrined in Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of deductions applied to the gross amount of a tax on deposits made by customers of credit institutions with their registered offices or agencies in the territory of a region of a Member State,"], "id": "a237c048-1148-40e0-81cb-28bab32ef239", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["(State aid \u2013 Swedish air transport market \u2013 Aid granted by Sweden to an airline amid the Covid-19 pandemic \u2013 Guarantee \u2013 Decision not to raise any objections \u2013 Commitments as a condition to make the aid compatible with the internal market \u2013 Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence \u2013 \u2013 Free provision of services \u2013 Equal treatment \u2013 Duty to state reasons)"], "id": "c48e8ecc-1c55-44ff-9810-bf6ee5552830", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The concept of \u2018establishment\u2019 within the meaning of the FEU Treaty provisions on involves the actual pursuit of an economic activity through a fixed establishment in the host Member State for an indefinite period. Consequently, it presupposes actual establishment of the company concerned in that Member State and the pursuit of genuine economic activity there (judgment of 22 November 2018, Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank, C\u2011625/17, EU:C:2018:939, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "fbba92f6-c829-4d3f-bfc9-65187e26b415", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["It has to be recalled in that regard that it does not follow from the requirement that the price must be equitable within the meaning of Article 5(4) of the directive that it must necessarily be based on the highest possible share price. On the contrary, an equitable share price within the meaning of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25 must reflect the true economic value of a share in the offeree company. That is because, on the one hand, takeovers should facilitate and, on the other hand, they should not disadvantage or infringe the fundamental property rights of minority shareholders. This is illustrated, moreover, by the basic legislative decision that, as a rule, the highest price paid by the offeror should be regarded as an equitable price since an undertaking is neither under- nor over-valued on a model, properly functioning, market."], "id": "44710d37-992b-42da-998d-bec8c308c3b3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["52. As public procurement rules under EU law were initially developed in the context of fundamental freedoms, and while I acknowledge that there is some overlap between those freedoms and other areas of law \u2013 namely competition law or State aid \u2013 (36) the concepts of \u2018services of general interest\u2019 and \u2018economic activity\u2019 used in the context of fundamental freedoms tend to vary from the ones developed in competition law. (37) Thus, according to the case-law concerning , it is the provision of services for remuneration that must be regarded as an economic activity. (38)"], "id": "2e799fc3-2deb-440f-b180-215979402336", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In addition to an infringement of , consideration must also be given to an infringement of the prohibition of State aid. Progressive taxation of economically stronger undertakings could also constitute aid to economically weaker undertakings, which are taxed at a lower level on account of the progressive tax rate, and as such be incompatible with the single market."], "id": "c4730e5b-4282-4844-b76d-b3020cc5a937", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Court touched upon \u2013 but did not explicitly decide \u2013 this issue in its judgment in Commission v United Kingdom, (55) in which it recognised the compatibility with the of a national provision whereby the assessment as to whether the losses of a non-resident subsidiary are final within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer (56) is to be made \u2018as at the time immediately after the end\u2019 of the accounting period in which the losses arose."], "id": "ec6d159c-231b-46c7-97c9-ea5932f7ca0a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The Court of Justice has therefore already addressed the French legal situation with regard to the taxation of dividends in a chain of companies in Accor and Commission v France and found infringements of the and the free movement of capital in each case. The issue in the present case is the compatibility of the relevant French provisions with Directive 90/435 (\u2018the Parent-Subsidiary Directive\u2019). By its present request for a preliminary ruling, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat (Council of State, France) is now seeking interpretation of that directive, in particular as to whether Article 7(2) thereof allows the imposition by the French authorities of such an advance payment."], "id": "ef32860e-d11f-4e24-bf0c-d3424ad0376b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it would appear from the case file that the two funds which acquired the two commercial complexes in question did so as a form of passive investment rather than to establish a business in or otherwise use the real estate in question. It follows that the funds in the main proceedings have not made use of their right to , but only of their right to the free movement of capital. Consequently, as the Commission stated, the alleged difference in treatment must be examined solely from the perspective of the free movement of capital."], "id": "454a8b0c-837e-4a9b-a26c-80f709a5bfdd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In those circumstances, the restriction on that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on an administrative authority the power to decide to close with immediate effect a commercial establishment on the ground that it suspects the exercise, within that establishment, of a prostitution business without the authorisation required by that regulation, must be regarded as being justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, and suitable for securing the attainment of the objectives pursued by the legislation, namely the prevention of the commission of criminal offences against persons who engage in prostitution and the protection of public health."], "id": "7a7ef70b-94c2-421a-8482-bf2e6575f9e9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The freedom of the Member States as to the choice of the management method that they judge to be most appropriate for the performance of works or the provision of services cannot, however, be unlimited. That freedom must, on the contrary, be exercised with due regard to the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular the free movement of goods, the and the freedom to provide services, as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency (the judgment in Irgita, paragraph 48)."], "id": "40e0e546-681a-4944-adbb-f717998ea685", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court considers that that legislation raises questions as to its compatibility with EU law. In particular, by referring to paragraph 80 of the judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Belgium (C\u201147/08, EU:C:2011:334), the referring court recalls that Article 49 TFEU guarantees that all nationals of a Member State who establish themselves in another Member State for the purpose of pursuing activities there as self-employed persons receive the same treatment as nationals of that State and prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality. The referring court also refers to the judgment of 23 September 2003, Ospelt and Schl\u00f6ssle Weissenberg (C\u2011452/01, EU:C:2003:493, paragraph 24), wherein the Court held that, although Article 345 TFEU does not call into question the Member States\u2019 right to lay down specific measures applying to the acquisition agricultural land, such measures remain subject to the rules of EU law relating to, inter alia, non-discrimination, and free movement of capital."], "id": "01c3eaa0-cd47-4501-b4f9-f9f185c86b74", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, any discrimination he may have suffered in breach of Article 18 TFEU falls within the scope of application of the Treaties by virtue of Article 49 TFEU. The principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality in Article 18 TFEU is given specific expression with respect to by Article 49 TFEU. The Court need only therefore, rule with respect to Article 49, read together with Article 165 TFEU, given that Article 18 TFEU applies independently only to situations governed by EU law in respect of which the TFEU lays down no specific prohibitions on discrimination. For reasons that I will further explain at points 97 to 110 below, the main proceedings do not present an occasion on which to consider taking the significant constitutional step of expanding its case-law on Article 21 TFEU and the component elements of European citizenship to the horizontal context of a dispute between private parties, which would thereby oblige non-State actors to comply with them."], "id": "49f79d90-eb5d-4bcd-be33-7870d7ed48cb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["6. Directive 2014/24 lays down rules that seek to coordinate national procedures for the award of public contracts above a certain threshold amount so that they may be consistent with the principle of the free movement of goods, and freedom to provide services, as well as ensuring the implementation of principles, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency. That directive is also intended to ensure effective competition in public procurement."], "id": "a266dbab-520e-49d3-b8fc-874f3613e73d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In the instant case, all the parties that submitted observations to the Court, except Impresa Pizzarotti, took the view that the restriction on introduced by the Romanian legislation at issue in the main proceedings is justified by the need to ensure the balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States, which constitutes, as is apparent from the preceding paragraph, an overriding reason in the public interest."], "id": "9b63eb1c-efd8-4365-9bac-b5fe34cec00b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["According to the referring court, the part-owner shipping companies pursue economic activity in Denmark by means of the four vessels in question and their registration in the DIS cannot therefore be separated from the exercise of the . VAS Shipping stated that no seaman who is a third-country national leaves the vessel at any time during entries into Danish ports and that all work on land is performed by Danish land-based personnel employed by the port of call."], "id": "3d041b2e-47c6-4787-8379-914b4a55cd9b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Articles 43 and 48 EC \u2013 \u2013 Corporation tax \u2013 Trade tax \u2013 Deduction of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State and belonging to a company situated in another member State \u2013 Avoidance of double taxation by exemption of the income of the non-resident permanent establishment \u2013 Comparability of the situations \u2013 Concept of \u2018final losses\u2019)"], "id": "f1a0629b-49dc-4723-888c-731edfd41bca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, the question arises whether the restriction on the formed by Section 11 of the WRPA 1999 is appropriate to ensure that the objective it pursues is achieved and that it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it, in so far as that provision limits the protection of the full and automatic exclusion from the bankruptcy estate only to pension rights accrued under UK tax-approved pension arrangements, precluding, inter alia, pension rights accrued under pension arrangements which are tax approved not in the United Kingdom but in an EU Member State, such as the home Member State of the migrant worker whose pension rights are at issue, which are subject to partial and discretionary exclusion from the bankruptcy estate under Section 12 of the WRPA 1999."], "id": "445a9d03-c256-4fc6-a4aa-c27bda6797d1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, while it is true that the measure at issue relates to individual aid which benefits only Finnair, the applicant has not shown how that exclusive character is such as to deter it from providing services from Finland and to Finland, or from exercising its in that Member State. In particular, it fails to identify the elements of fact or law which cause the individual aid at issue to produce restrictive effects that go beyond those which trigger the prohibition in Article 107(1) TFEU, but which, as was found in paragraphs 42 to 63 above and in paragraphs 82 to 92 above, are nevertheless necessary and proportionate to remedy the serious disturbance in the Finnish economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, in accordance with the requirements of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU."], "id": "79de99a8-46fa-4226-9eba-9cc38be97641", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Does Article 63 of Directive [2014/24/EU], in conjunction with the principles of and freedom to provide services enshrined in Articles 49 and 56 [TFEU], preclude the application of the provisions of Italian law relating to reliance on the capacities of other entities and exclusion from award procedures set out in the fourth subparagraph of Article 89(1) of the Public Procurement Code \u2026 under which, if untruthful declarations are made by an ancillary undertaking regarding the existence of convictions in criminal proceedings that have become final, which may demonstrate serious professional misconduct, the contracting authority must in all cases exclude the economic operator taking part in the tendering procedure, without requiring or permitting that operator to indicate another suitable ancillary undertaking to replace the former undertaking, which is, conversely, permitted in other cases where the entities on whose capacities the economic operator intends to rely fail to meet a relevant selection criterion or are subject to mandatory grounds for exclusion?\u2019"], "id": "87ba3e8e-4df9-46f9-a485-f8c8eb1f84b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["See, for example, judgments of 12 December 1990, SARPP (C\u2011241/89, EU:C:1990:459, paragraph 8); of 2 February 1994, Verband Sozialer WettbewerbClinique (C\u2011315/92, EU:C:1994:34, paragraph 7); of 4 March 1999, Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola (C\u201187/97, EU:C:1999:115, paragraph 16); of 29 April 2004, Weigel (C\u2011387/01, EU:C:2004:256, paragraph 44: the question relating to the application of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64) had been submitted only by the applicants to the main proceedings and the Commission); of 21 February 2006, Ritter-Coulais (C\u2011152/03, EU:C:2006:123, paragraph 29: questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning and the free movement of capital and the raising by the Court of its own motion, at the behest of the Commission, of a question concerning the free movement of workers); of 25 January 2007, Dyson (C\u2011321/03, EU:C:2007:51, paragraphs 24 to 26); of 30 May 2013, Worten (C\u2011342/12, EU:C:2013:355, paragraphs 30 and 31); and of 12 December 2013, Hay (C\u2011267/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:823, paragraph 23: the referring court assumes this to be a case of indirect discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation whereas the Court determines whether it is a case of direct discrimination). For a reminder of the case-law, see Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Fonnship and Svenska Transportarbetaref\u00f6rbundet (C\u201183/13, EU:C:2014:201, paragraph 17)."], "id": "c4a51585-09a2-4b58-bf02-d6fde7974b2f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Do the principles of , non-discrimination, equal treatment, the protection of competition and freedom of movement for workers, referred to in Articles 45, 49 to 56 and 106 TFEU and in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter, and the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness inherent in those principles, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991, which, in the event of the transfer of ownership of a municipal pharmacy, confers a right of pre-emption on the employees of the pharmacy in question?\u2019"], "id": "2921eb95-e21e-4dcc-aed7-426032f27e98", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["VAS Shipping considers, however, that the measures in question cannot be dissociated from the conditions relating to the registration of a vessel in a maritime registry of a Member State and the continued exploitation of the vessel in that State. This is particularly evident, according to VAS Shipping, as those measures concern only vessels registered in a maritime registry of the Member State in question, while vessels registered in other Member State can freely call at Danish ports and the question whether their crew includes third-country nationals is irrelevant. VAS Shipping thus considers that the measures in question constitute a restriction of the pursuant to Article 49 TFEU."], "id": "985287b2-9815-4249-a155-cc86b73967b4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, I take the view that Mr Biffi\u2019s situation is not unlike that of the applicant in the seminal ruling of the Court in Konstantinidis. Mr Biffi is disadvantaged in comparison to the way a German national would be treated in the same circumstances because, as was the case with respect to the (mandatory) spelling, or misspelling of Mr Konstantinidis\u2019 name under German law, the loss of the right to refer to his achievements in national championships in future events is of a degree of inconvenience to interfere with Mr Biffi\u2019s under that article. Indeed the Court held in Konstantinidis that the impact on the measure impugned for attracting clients was relevant to this assessment."], "id": "7189d40e-0ac2-48d2-bc47-6bc2b0ff9c8d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, that court observes that the restrictions set out in national law on subcontracting may make it more difficult for undertakings, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings, to access public contracts, thereby hindering the exercise of and the freedom to provide services. It states that those restrictions may also deprive public purchasers of the opportunity to receive a greater number and variety of tenders. Allowing subcontracting to be used for only part of the contract, set in abstract terms as a certain percentage of the value thereof, irrespective of the possibility of verifying the capacity of potential subcontractors and without mention of the essential character of the tasks in question is not provided for under Directive 2004/18 and runs counter to the objectives of the opening up of competition and facilitating access to public contracts by small and medium-sized enterprises."], "id": "5f8f9604-38ef-4ee8-98c4-0997e623f44e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of establishment", "masked_sentences": ["It is common ground between the parties to the main proceedings that the work permit requirement, laid down in Paragraph 13(1) of the Law on foreign nationals, in conjunction with Paragraph 33(4) of the Regulation on foreign nationals, amounts to a restriction on the enshrined in Article 49 TFEU. However, while the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office takes the view that that restriction is compatible with EU law, VAS Shipping submits that that national legislation requires shipowners from other countries of the European Union to change their recruitment policy, without it being necessary to safeguard the public interest objective pursued."], "id": "57887c5a-35ab-4f05-8fc2-fcd923481127", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/31, each Member State is to ensure that the information society services provided by a service provider established in its territory comply with the national provisions applicable in the Member State in question that fall within the coordinated field. According to Article 3(2) of that directive, on the other hand, Member States other than that in whose territory a service provider is established may not, in principle, for reasons falling within the coordinated field, restrict the free movement of such services. It is therefore the information society services that benefit from the referred to in the first question."], "id": "7bd27d16-569c-447a-adde-414be534da33", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Hungary states that that amendment is also not in the interest of the , that it constitutes rather a direct interference in economic relationships and that it nullifies the lawful competitive advantage of certain easily identifiable Member States in which the level of pay is lower, the EU legislature having thus introduced a measure the effect of which is to distort competition."], "id": "7e0cea10-6bae-4906-9734-07b26e8f336d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging, respectively: (i) an infringement of the principles of non-discrimination, and freedom of establishment; (ii) a misapplication of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and a manifest error of assessment relating to the proportionality of the aid; (iii) that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure; and (iv) an infringement of the obligation to state reasons within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU."], "id": "56625cc6-426b-402d-9cdf-ed91b0281815", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Taking the view, however, that its activity constituted an information society service, which, under Article 4 of Directive 2000/31, cannot be made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect, Star Taxi App made a prior administrative complaint seeking revocation of Decision No 626/2017. That complaint was rejected on the ground that the regulations at issue had been made necessary by the considerable number of bookings made with unauthorised legal entities, and that the regulations did not infringe the by electronic means since they laid down a framework for an intermediation service relating to the transport of passengers by taxi."], "id": "cedbc366-fc51-4e32-ba79-799ee9cb07a3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Do the principles of freedom of establishment and laid down in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU [and] Articles 15 and 16 of [the Framework Directive], together with the principles on safeguarding pluralism of information sources and competition in the broadcasting sector laid down by [the Audiovisual Media Services Directive] and by [the Framework Directive], preclude national legislation such as [TUSMAR] which, in Article 43(9) thereof and in [the provision at issue in the main proceedings], sets very different thresholds (20% and 10% respectively) for \u201centities required to be entered in the Register of Communications Operators established under Article 1(6)(a)(5) of Law No 249 of 31 July 1997\u201d (that is, entities that have received a concession or authorisation under the legislation in force, from AGCOM or from other competent administrative authorities, and concessionaires of advertising, however transmitted, publishers, and so on, referred to in Article 43(9)), on the one hand, and for undertakings operating in the electronic communications sector, as defined above (covered by [the provision at issue in the main proceedings]), on the other?\u2019"], "id": "0b400ab4-bfdd-4525-887c-2c76637dd4b2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018A foreign insurance undertaking established in a Member State \u2026 other than the Republic of Poland which, under the , and by a means other than the establishment of a branch, intends to engage in the business of insurance in the territory of the Republic of Poland with respect to the types of insurance referred to under Group 10 of Part II of the Annex to the Law, with the exception of carrier\u2019s civil liability insurance, shall submit to the supervisory authority, through the supervisory authority of the State in which it is established:"], "id": "6f183645-a97b-41f6-bf07-62051c209660", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, the Republic of Poland is of the view, first, that the guaranteed in Article 56 TFEU rests not on the principle of equal treatment, but on the prohibition of discrimination, and, second, that foreign service providers are in a situation that is different from and more difficult than that of the service providers established in the host Member State, primarily because they must comply with the rules of their Member State of origin and the rules of that host Member State."], "id": "fd8d78b7-bca1-4c8a-993c-078f1c8c8730", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["By its third question, the referring court wishes to know, in essence, whether the enjoyed by Google under Article 56 TFEU in conjunction with Articles 62 and 54 TFEU is infringed by the specific registration obligation under Article 7/B of the Law on the taxation of advertisements. This is against the background of the fact that an existing registration pursuant to other tax legislation (that is to say, another tax assessment) grants exemption from the specific registration obligation under Article 7/B of the Law on the taxation of advertisements."], "id": "c1eff291-5fe7-4b70-98cd-1abe9d922578", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(10) and Article 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013 (OJ 2013 L 335, p. 17) (\u2018Directive 2004/18\u2019), and the principles of and of opening up to competition as far as possible in the field of public service contracts. Directive 2004/18 was repealed by Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65)."], "id": "d08c188d-42a3-4d8a-90d9-9e1bd1cb3f10", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, the applicant claims that, in its compatibility assessment for the measure at issue, the Commission should have determined whether the form of aid granted in the present case, that is to say a State loan guarantee, conformed to the principles of and freedom of establishment. By failing to do so, the Commission erred in law. The applicant submits that reserving the aid only to Finnair restricts the rights granted to other EU airlines to provide their services freely within the internal market. The contested decision therefore causes an unjustified restriction of the principles of the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment."], "id": "35d27a0c-6107-4bca-9b5a-051902a609f2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The under Article 56 TFEU requires thus not only the elimination of all discrimination against service providers established in other Member States on grounds of nationality, but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national service providers and service providers from other Member States. This constitutes consistent case-law since the judgment of 25 July 1991, S\u00e4ger (C\u201176/90, EU:C:1991:331, paragraph 12). See, moreover, judgments of 18 July 2013, Citro\u00ebn Belux (C\u2011265/12, EU:C:2013:498, paragraph 35), and of 8 September 2009, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International (C\u201142/07, EU:C:2009:519, paragraph 51). In the judgment of 30 November 1995, Gebhard (C\u201155/94, EU:C:1995:411, paragraph 37), though that was a case on the freedom of establishment, the Court referred not only to that specific freedom: \u2018national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty\u2019. My emphasis."], "id": "0910e676-81d5-477a-afca-f86ccf1a8345", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Do the principles of freedom of establishment and referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the [TFEU], Article 71 of [Directive 2014/24], which does not contemplate quantitative limitations on subcontracting, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national legislation in matters relating to public procurement, such as the Italian rule set out in the third sentence of Article 105(2) of [Legislative Decree No 50/2016], pursuant to which subcontracting cannot exceed 30% of the total amount of the contract for works, services or supplies?\u2019"], "id": "44b443ed-edaf-44ce-a5dc-780a4b9cb58e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be noted that Directive 2004/18, like the other directives on public procurement, as is apparent, in essence, from recital 2 thereof, seeks to ensure compliance, in the award of public contracts with, inter alia, the free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and the , as well as with the principles deriving therefrom, in particular equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, and to ensure that public procurement is opened up to competition (judgments of 12 July 2001, Ordine degli Architetti and Others, C\u2011399/98, EU:C:2001:401, paragraphs 52 and 75, and of 27 November 2019, Tedeschi and Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, C\u2011402/18, EU:C:2019:1023, paragraph 33)."], "id": "755993ba-7bf1-4462-a9c5-0c24b3a89d4e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["I note in that regard that, according to settled case-law, the requirement of prior authorisation for treatment planned in another Member State, to which responsibility for payment by the competent institution is made subject, in accordance with the rules governing cover in force in the Member State to which that institution belongs, constitutes, for both patients and service providers, an obstacle to the , since such a system deters, or even prevents, those patients from approaching providers of medical services established in a Member State to obtain the treatment in question. In other words, Article 56 TFEU precludes the application of any national rules which have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within one Member State. Accordingly, such authorisation may indeed constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services."], "id": "5203308d-71e1-459e-9f83-536a764468d1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Where a national measure affects both the free movement of workers and the the Court will, in principle, examine it in relation to only one of those two fundamental freedoms where it is shown that, in the circumstances of the case, one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 October 2004, Omega, C\u201136/02, EU:C:2004:614, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "c7fbbd97-f446-4bd2-880c-850b32d84df2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In the second situation, an insured person is entitled to be reimbursed directly by the competent institution in an amount equivalent to that which it would ordinarily have reimbursed if the insured person had been granted such authorisation when, for reasons relating to his or her state of health or to the need to receive urgent treatment in a hospital, that person was prevented from applying for such authorisation or was not able to wait for the decision of the competent institution on the application for authorisation submitted. The Court has held in that respect that legislation which excludes, in all cases, reimbursement in respect of hospital treatment given in another Member State without authorisation, deprives the insured person of reimbursement in respect of such treatment, even though all other conditions for reimbursement are met. Such legislation, which cannot be justified by requirements of public interest and, in any event, does not satisfy the requirement of proportionality, therefore constitutes an unjustified restriction of the (see, by analogy, as regards Article 49 EC and Regulation No 1408/71, Elchinov, paragraphs 45 to 47, 51 and 75)."], "id": "f0594c35-d280-4afe-900a-2514dc23002f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["50. While the first two questions referred mention only Article 49 TFEU \u2013 and not Article 56 TFEU \u2013 the concepts of \u2018services\u2019 and \u2018economic activity\u2019 are largely defined by the latter Treaty provision. There exists no simple criterion for distinguishing between the two freedoms, although the distinction appears to lie in the temporary nature of the activities. (33) On account of the grey area between these two freedoms and as together they form the basis of Directive 2014/24, in the analysis of the first and second questions, reference is made in the present Opinion not only to freedom of establishment, but also to ."], "id": "02d6295a-4783-4b85-86c7-1afd0a0c4ac1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the various arguments raised before it, that court questions, in the first place, whether the restriction on the guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU resulting from the prohibition laid down in Paragraph 7(11) of the RStV can be justified in the light of the overriding reason of general interest pursued by that provision, namely the protection of media pluralism."], "id": "a4be54b8-3ad8-4846-aa00-dcb31f5d1f73", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["on the one hand, the perspective of the in the internal market. In line with that freedom, restrictions which preclude an undertaking from a Member State with low labour costs from posting its workers to provide services in another Member State with higher labour costs must be removed. The States of origin of such undertakings emphasise the need to facilitate the freedom to provide services. They maintain, therefore, that workers on temporary postings should remain subject to the legislation of the State of origin and that the fewest possible provisions of the State of destination should apply to such workers;"], "id": "a08d07a0-d783-4849-9ba8-1dde56ab924d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, the Court has held with respect to the practice of what is commonly referred to as \u2018cold-calling\u2019, that is, contacting individuals by telephone without their prior consent in order to offer them financial services, that \u2018the prior existence of an identifiable recipient [is not] a condition for application of the provisions on the freedom to provide services\u2019. The Court also indicated its motivation for ruling in this way: \u2018the would become illusory if national rules were at liberty to restrict offers of services\u2019. Thus, already the preparation of the provision of a service falls within the scope of Article 56 TFEU."], "id": "c74f1938-e630-4ec6-8df2-3526d1e8cc0a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["(Action for annulment \u2013 Directive (EU) 2018/957 \u2013 Directive 96/71/EC \u2013 Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services \u2013 Rules on working conditions and the health and safety of workers \u2013 Incorrect legal basis \u2013 Discriminatory, unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions \u2013 Infringement of the principle of \u2013 Remuneration of posted workers \u2013 Long-term posted workers \u2013 Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations \u2013 Road transport)"], "id": "c5f16e03-7db0-4e78-9f1a-6c964309b473", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 for lawyers \u2013 Directive 77/249/EEC \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 Requirement that lawyers established in another Member State who represent clients in legal proceedings before national courts work in conjunction with a domestic lawyer \u2013 Whether a party represented by a foreign lawyer in preliminary ruling proceedings may be represented by the same lawyer in the ensuing national proceedings)"], "id": "5c56b13c-1c88-4ef9-86a4-e2e3f5b46eaa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["According to the information supplied by the referring court, the visiting lawyer has to provide the national courts with the name of an Irish-qualified lawyer who would be available to assist him or her should that lawyer require help on matters of national law, national practice and procedure or ethical rules. It would appear that the legislation leaves it to the visiting lawyer and the domestic lawyer to define their roles in each case, and the professionals in question therefore have a degree of flexibility in arranging how they will cooperate. In that context, it does not appear that is harmed more than is necessary to attain the public interest objectives sought."], "id": "2656a92a-5bf8-40b1-b4ad-6891611aa7c5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, it cannot be excluded that the possible risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system may constitute a legitimate objective capable of justifying a difference in treatment based on religion. The objective of maintaining a balanced medical and hospital service open to all may also fall within the derogations on grounds of public health in so far as it contributes to the attainment of a high level of health protection (see, by analogy, in the area of , judgment of 5 October 2010, Elchinov, C\u2011173/09, EU:C:2010:581, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "829617ab-568b-4066-90e7-6d1e239d4951", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In the third place, as regards legal services involving activities connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority, covered by Article 10(d)(v) of Directive 2014/24, those activities and, therefore, those services are excluded, under Article 51 TFEU, from the scope of the provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom of establishment and from those relating to under Article 62 TFEU. Such services are different from those falling within the scope of the directive in that they directly or indirectly participate in the exercise of public authority and in functions the purpose of which is to safeguard the general interests of the State or other public authorities."], "id": "47093a8f-89d3-4998-9f05-e1e5d485061d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and \u2013 where deemed applicable \u2013 Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, which, under Article 21(3) and (4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provides that \u201cthe Customs and Monopolies Agency shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018\u201d,taking into account that:"], "id": "d5692616-f0fe-4b57-a5f7-4c0044b1db0e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["This is because any harmonising measure which protects a fundamental social interest such as the rights of posted workers hinders to some extent the of the undertakings that use such workers. However, such a restriction impacts the internal market to a much lesser extent than an equivalent national measure, since the former applies throughout the territory of the European Union. The existence and restrictive effects of such a measure can be eliminated only by making working conditions the same in every Member State, a step which the European Union is not competent to initiate."], "id": "5ab9746d-3147-4e8e-846c-cab6700c1a0a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Since the question referred for a preliminary ruling mentions a number of provisions of the Treaty, namely those relating to, respectively, freedom of establishment, the and the free movement of capital, and the provisions of Articles 18, 26 and 110 TFEU, it is necessary, first, to clarify the scope of that question in accordance with the specific features of the dispute in the main proceedings."], "id": "f2a2c64f-00e1-49ef-9601-61a0ad69d5b9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Article 2(1)(c) and Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, as well as the annex thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that any full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun before the entry into force, on 29 January 1982, of Directive 82/76 and continued after the expiry, on 1 January 1983, of the period prescribed for the transposition of that directive must, in respect of the period of that training running from 1 January 1983 until the end of that training, be subject to appropriate remuneration within the meaning of that annex, provided that that training concerns a medical specialty which is common to all the Member States or to two or more of them and is mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and ."], "id": "9957c692-6013-4afd-985e-6bcdd9159473", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The protection of passengers should cover not only passenger services between ports situated in the territory of the Member States, but also passenger services between ports and ports situated outside the territory of the Member States, taking into account the risk of distortion of competition on the passenger transport market. Therefore the term \u201cUnion carrier\u201d should, for the purposes of this Regulation, be interpreted as broadly as possible, but without affecting other legal acts of the Union, such as Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport [(OJ 1986 L 378, p. 4)] and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) [(OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7)]."], "id": "525872e6-9dbb-4cd9-91a7-c938cc3de71a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Article 49 TFEU \u2014 Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Freedom of establishment and \u2014 Restriction \u2014 Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise \u2014 No statement of reasons \u2014 Overriding reasons in the public interest \u2014 Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution \u2014 Protection of public health \u2014 Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment \u2014 Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights \u2014 Effectiveness of judicial review \u2014 Rights of defence \u2014 General principle of the right to good administration)"], "id": "d7238310-4d8f-4530-a6b8-0dd108518aea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["However, the insurance contract at issue in the main proceedings, which is intended to cover the civil liability of the manufacturer of the breast implants concerned with respect to the harm associated with those implants, was entered into by PIP, a manufacturer of prostheses established in France, on the one hand, and the insurance company AGF IARD, also established in France, on the other. The conclusion of that contract does not therefore fall within the scope of the exercise of the ."], "id": "5af65833-24af-4dcf-823f-db0b2b594bc5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be stressed that this case concerns only the scope ratione materiae of the under the FEU Treaty. It does not concern the general compatibility of the national measure with the freedom to provide services. In other words, the only issue which the referring court seeks to determine with the help of the Court is whether there is a restriction under Article 56 TFEU (which would be the case if the situation fell within the scope of that provision) and not whether, in addition, a restriction would be justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest."], "id": "43421e7f-a42d-4e8e-b903-4f7b2c4c1013", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Fundamental freedoms \u2014 \u2014 Restrictions and discrimination \u2014 Substantive tax law and law of tax procedure \u2014 Turnover-based tax on advertisements \u2014 Taxation of foreign activities in the Hungarian language \u2014 Principle of territoriality in EU law \u2014 Obligation to register for tax purposes \u2014 Different registration procedures for nationals and foreigners \u2014 Penalties in the case of non-registration)"], "id": "6123d8cc-30b5-478d-9b71-47ce81a47da3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and \u2013 where deemed applicable \u2013 Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding such a provision, even if the operators in the sector currently interested in entering the market [\u2026] did not participate in the call for tenders originally held to award the concession which was due to expire and which was continued with the outgoing concessionaire on the new contractual terms described, or does [\u2026] any restriction on access to the market [\u2026] apply only if they actually participated in the original call for tenders?\u2019"], "id": "f5f5ca84-8dee-4439-84b1-20fd0e767e25", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Clearly, such a finding implies that under the law as it currently stands the scope ratione materiae is very large, raising the question whether the Court should consider introducing a limitation such as it has done in Keck and Mithouard in 1993 regarding the free movement of goods. The line of argumentation for such a limitation would be the following: as in Keck and Mithouard, we are here in the presence of an indistinctly applicable measure, in law and in fact, to the and the corresponding freedom to receive such services. There is therefore no discriminatory element involved: from the perspective of the service provider, any foreign firm wishing to establish itself in D\u011b\u010d\u00edn with a view to offering gambling activities finds itself in exactly the same situation as BONVER WIN and could not carry out its activity in the specified part of town. Conversely, as regards the service recipient, no recipient \u2014 be he or she a Czech or foreign recipient \u2014 can receive gambling services in the specified part of the town. On the assumption that the concept of a \u2018certain selling arrangement\u2019, as developed in Keck and Mithouard, is in reality to mean the market access of a firm intending to sell goods or, in the present case, to offer its services, why not exclude from the scope of Article 56 TFEU those measures indistinctly applicable in law and in fact which do not impede the market access of service providers from other Member States?"], "id": "514f4f82-ce4f-4a27-a736-aeb9e38953cb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Is the correct application of [the MiFID], in particular Articles 8, 23 and 51 of that directive, and of the principles and rules of the Treaties with regard to non-discrimination, proportionality, and the right of establishment precluded by provisions of national law, such as those in Article 55(2) of [the TUF], as amended, and also Article 111, paragraph 2 of the [Regulation laying down the rules implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 on intermediaries, adopted by Consob by Resolution No 16190 of 29 October 2007], that:"], "id": "9df66eea-6036-49d3-a4c1-fcb525dd8655", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Where a national measure relates both to the free movement of goods and to the , the Court will in principle examine it in relation to one only of those two fundamental freedoms where it is shown that one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it (judgment of 18 September 2019, VIPA, C\u2011222/18, EU:C:2019:751, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "c334f46f-fc8f-41f3-9470-a14ac720332e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be recalled that, first, the protection of consumers, in particular recipients of legal services provided by persons involved in the administration of justice, and, second, the proper administration of justice are objectives which feature among those which may be regarded as overriding reasons in the public interest capable of justifying restrictions both on the (judgment of 18 May 2017, Lahorgue, C\u201199/16, EU:C:2017:391, paragraph 34) as well as, as observed by the Advocate General in point 66 of his Opinion, on the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 July 1984, Klopp, 107/83, EU:C:1984:270, paragraph 20, and of 19 February 2002, Wouters and Others, C\u2011309/99, EU:C:2002:98, paragraph 122)."], "id": "3db4143b-791f-4d7d-b835-52e98e36c40f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The Extended Chamber proceeds on the assumption that, in the present case, what is at issue is a possible restriction of the freedom of customers to obtain services and not a possible restriction of the in respect of their supplier, which is a Czech company having its seat in that Member State. The referring court observes that it follows from the case-law of the Court that services which a provider established in a Member State provides, without travelling, to a recipient established in another Member State constitute a cross-border provision of services and that such recipients also include tourists or persons travelling for the purposes of study. Moreover, that court considers that national legislation, such as the Czech legislation in the present case, which is indiscriminately applicable to nationals of that Member State and those of other Member States, is, as a general rule, capable of falling within the scope of the provisions relating to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty only in so far as it applies to situations connected with trade between Member States."], "id": "bcab24e7-34e8-40cb-94f9-8b92470c304b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["By its two questions which merit a single answer, the referring court, in essence, seeks to ascertain whether the under Article 56 TFEU applies to a situation in which a company established in a Member State loses, following the entry into force of local legislation determining the places in which it is permitted to carry out its activity, the authorisation to operate that activity on the ground that some of its customers come from a Member State other than that in which that company is established. In this connection, the referring court would like to know whether the non-discriminatory nature of those rules and the existence of a de minimis rule in the area of the freedom to provide services are relevant to that answer."], "id": "ed9a433c-e1c3-4c7a-9385-13d4ef4fb123", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["77. Moreover, double taxation based on EU law (in casu, the VAT Directive) affects the fundamental rights of the taxable person (see Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) in the implementation of EU law. (26) Furthermore, double taxation in respect of VAT for cross-border supplies of goods and services would impair the free movement of goods and the ."], "id": "ae2ccf5f-36c1-4312-b9f3-d205d46e5c33", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Where a national measure relates to both the free movement of goods and the , the Court will in principle examine that measure in relation to only one of those two fundamental freedoms if it is apparent that one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it (judgments of 22 January 2002, Canal Sat\u00e9lite Digital, C\u2011390/99, EU:C:2002:34, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited, and of 4 October 2011, Football Association Premier League and Others, C\u2011403/08 and C\u2011429/08, EU:C:2011:631, paragraph 78)."], "id": "c2cfe2c5-ed5a-4729-9b89-f61c659cf1ca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Jurisdiction of the Court \u2013 General Agreement on Trade in Services \u2013 Article XVI \u2013 Market access \u2013 Schedule of specific commitments \u2013 Requirement of authorisation \u2013 Article XX(2) \u2013 Article XVII \u2013 National treatment \u2013 Service provider having its seat in a third country \u2013 National legislation of a Member State imposing conditions for the supply of higher education services within its territory \u2013 Requirement relating to the conclusion of an international treaty with the State in which the provider has its seat \u2013 Requirement relating to the provision of education in the State in which the provider has its seat \u2013 Modification of conditions of competition to the benefit of national providers \u2013 Justification \u2013 Public order \u2013 Prevention of deceptive practices \u2013 Article 49 TFEU \u2013 Freedom of establishment \u2013 Directive 2006/123/EC \u2013 Services in the internal market \u2013 Article 16 \u2013 Article 56 TFEU \u2013 \u2013 Existence of a restriction \u2013 Justification \u2013 Overriding reason in the public interest \u2013 Public order \u2013 Prevention of deceptive practices \u2013 High quality of the education \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 13 \u2013 Academic freedom \u2013 Article 14(3) \u2013 Freedom to found educational establishments \u2013 Article 16 \u2013 Freedom to conduct a business \u2013 Article 52(1))"], "id": "f2610a6b-5e57-4344-b596-c9d3360edb02", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["That is why the second sentence opens with \u2018therefore\u2019, adding a list introduced with an illustrative \u2018such as\u2019. However, far from adding area-related block exemptions to the scope of the directive, that part of the second sentence simply confirms that would-be service providers cannot challenge a generally applicable regulatory regime on the ground that it impedes their unlimited . Thus, such providers cannot ask for a special regulatory regime, that would differ from that applicable to \u2018individuals acting in their private capacity\u2019, as the recital concludes."], "id": "6538211c-d3c5-40de-a4a4-f2b2bd31b30c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, the referring court asks whether it would not be appropriate to establish, in the area of the , a de minimis rule, based on the existence of a sufficient link between the legislation at issue and the freedom to provide services. It takes the view that non-discriminatory legislation applicable at municipal level does not fall within the scope of Article 56 TFEU."], "id": "6bccf809-359f-44eb-a4a8-345099b801af", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Any measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of such freedoms must be considered to be restrictions on the . That is all the more true when prospective advertisers come from other Member States, in so far as restrictions on the possibility of using advertising services make it particularly difficult for them to access the market of the Member State which established those restrictions. Such restrictions may exist, in particular, when broadcasting of advertisements for the activities of the prospective advertiser is permitted only on local television networks, whilst it is prohibited on national television networks."], "id": "f1bffd44-eb91-4ef3-9735-8417594ae34d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Assuming that I have understood the question correctly, and leaving aside the puzzling issue of under which provision of national law could a collective agreement that is not universally applicable still be declared binding on service providers from other Member States, the response to that question would indeed subsequently follow from the analysis of restrictions to the under Article 56 TFEU."], "id": "d687d8e2-b1ac-4388-b69b-3884b70fa854", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["To that end, I would point out from the outset that that directive is part of a series of acts of EU law on harmonisation in the field of substantive private law that were adopted on the basis of Article 100a of the EEC Treaty (now, after amendments, Article 114 TFEU). As it forms part of that legislative context, the directive takes account of the need to protect consumers, in conjunction with directives geared to the implementation of the internal market. It is apparent from the first three recitals of Directive 90/314 that the establishment of common rules on packages contributes to the elimination of the obstacles to the and the distortions of competition amongst operators established in different Member States, whilst enabling consumers \u2018to benefit from comparable conditions when buying a package in any Member State\u2019."], "id": "c992108f-5273-4746-a835-2bc5697731e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["For a restriction on the to be justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, it must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and it must also be proportionate, that is to say it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective. The question therefore arises whether other measures could achieve the same objective, whilst at the same time placing fewer restrictions on the freedom to provide services."], "id": "19664949-a4d9-46c5-b678-db1733d397d8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["That court notes that the freedom of trade and industry, as enshrined in the Belgian Constitution, is closely linked to the freedom to choose an occupation, the right to engage in work and the freedom to conduct a business, which are guaranteed by Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter, and to several fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, such as the (Article 56 TFEU) and the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU)."], "id": "c10479d6-8d57-4d4e-b70e-e00600b156ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The EU single market is a cornerstone of European integration and a key driver for growth and employment and includes inter alia the , enshrined in Article 56(1) TFEU. The provision of legal services \u2013 specifically the provision of legal advice and representation in proceedings before the courts \u2013 by lawyers, which is central to this case, therefore belongs to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties."], "id": "fe1fb9b4-c074-416b-a790-b0b77069afd6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["However, the national court also observes that, in the advisory opinions that it has delivered on national legislation on subcontracting, it has found that the objective of safeguarding the integrity of public contracts and preventing their infiltration by criminal organisations could justify a restriction on freedom of establishment and the . It also sets out other reasons which, in its view, justify the thresholds at issue in the main proceedings. Thus, it states, first, that if the 20% limit laid down in Article 118(4) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006 were to be abolished, covert forms of \u2018wage dumping\u2019, liable to have an anti-competitive effect, could be practised. Secondly, it states that, if the 30% limit laid down in Article 118(2) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006 were abolished, the implementation of certain public contracts could be jeopardised because of the difficulty which might arise in assessing the viability of \u2013 and thus the absence of irregularities in \u2013 tenders, as in the case in the main proceedings."], "id": "f7045a3e-eeb0-4dc3-93f2-ee17b93d7453", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["I agree with the Netherlands Government that the situation described in question 3(b) would indeed then constitute a restriction of . It would impose a burden on the undertakings concerned, because it would require compliance with obligations corresponding to those defined in the PWD beyond the scope of that instrument. The key question would then be whether such a restriction could be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest and whether it meets the test of proportionality."], "id": "a959b69c-6a8e-4219-8ea6-72745ad9c6b7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court raises five questions concerning the compatibility of a Portuguese provision of tax law with the fundamental freedoms. By all the questions referred, the referring court ultimately seeks to ascertain whether the taxation of a UCITS formed under foreign law and having its seat in another Member State is compatible with the free movement of capital and the whereas, by contrast, UCITS formed under Portuguese law and having their seat in Portugal are exempt from corporation tax but are subject to a different tax \u2013 stamp duty. Therefore, in line with the view taken by the Commission, all the questions can be answered together."], "id": "4d71f737-b759-41da-8137-81a0a3dc7706", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 3: Does EU law, in particular the (Articles 56 and 57 TFEU), preclude a provision of national law which also mandatorily requires undertakings which post workers to the territory of another Member State for the purpose of providing a service to comply with terms and conditions of employment within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive and to comply with accompanying obligations (such as, in particular, the obligation to provide a notification regarding the cross-border posting of workers to a public authority in the host Member State and the obligation to retain documents relating to the level of remuneration and to the social security registration of these workers) in situations in which (firstly) the workers posted across borders form part of the mobile staff of a railway undertaking that is active on a cross-border basis or of an undertaking which provides services typical for a railway undertaking (provision of food and drink to passengers, on-board service) on that undertaking\u2019s trains which cross the borders of the Member States, and in which (secondly) the posting is based either on no service contract at all or at least on no service contract between the undertaking making the posting and the recipient of the services which is active in another Member State, because the posting undertaking\u2019s obligation to provide services to the recipient of the services which is active in another Member State is established by way of subcontracts (a subcontracting chain), and in which (thirdly) the posted worker is not in an employment relationship with the undertaking making the posting but rather is in an employment relationship with a third-party undertaking which has hired out its workers to the undertaking making the posting back in the Member State in which the posting undertaking is established?\u2019"], "id": "697395d8-89bf-425b-a6b5-300791b49f26", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["On that basis, Directive 2018/957 merely stipulates which provisions of the host State are applicable to posted workers during the period in which the undertakings in which they are employed are engaged in the transnational provision of services. Construed in that way, it resembles a conflict rule, in accordance with which the applicable legislation is identified in order to facilitate the while also safeguarding appropriate social protection for posted workers. The legal bases laid down in Article 153(2) TFEU do not cover, and are not intended for, such situations."], "id": "a1c1666f-fa00-4f1e-8fb0-b14a9151a821", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["One can consider that harmonisation to be a means to pursue the aim of achieving, as stated by Advocate General Szpunar in reference to recital 5 of the PWD, \u2018a threefold objective, which is the promotion of the transnational provision of services, in a climate of fair competition, and guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers\u2019. As was also noted by Advocate General Szpunar, the combination of those objectives does not necessarily result in a harmonious whole. For this reason, he considered that it was \u2018more coherent to consider [the PWD] as a measure which seeks to reconcile the opposing objectives of the and the protection of the rights of workers\u2019."], "id": "7bdee316-b3cf-45ff-96bf-3783331b82d2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["20 Similarly, in so far as the file submitted to the Court contains nothing capable of establishing a link between the situation at issue in the main proceedings and the exercise of the provided for in Articles 56 to 62 TFEU, the interpretation of those articles does not appear to be relevant for the resolution of that dispute either."], "id": "3ac511d9-9e16-4591-8482-241dfed9b618", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["It is important to recall that Directive 77/249, which contains measures intended to facilitate the effective pursuit of the activities of lawyers by way of provision of services, must be interpreted, in particular, in the light of Article 56 TFEU, which prohibits any restriction on the and which logically requires the abolition of all discrimination against the person providing the service by reason of his or her nationality or the fact that he or she is established in a Member State other than that in which the service is to be provided (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 February 1988, Commission v Germany, 427/85, EU:C:1988:98, paragraphs 11 and 13)."], "id": "9bf04833-95e0-4f2a-8b77-3d0a76be07c2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The FNV brought an appeal before the referring court, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court, Netherlands), against that decision of the appeal court, in so far as it is based on a literal interpretation of Article 1(1) and (3) of Directive 96/71. Van den Bosch Transporten, Van den Bosch Transporte and Silo-Tank submitted a cross-appeal, in so far as the appeal court decided that Article 44 of the \u2018Goods Transport\u2019 CLA cannot be considered to be an unjustified obstacle to the ."], "id": "b3ba81bc-7537-4225-a48b-2c1f6d811b17", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that Article 18 TFEU applies independently only to situations governed by EU law for which the Treaty lays down no specific rules of non-discrimination. However, the Treaty lays down such a specific rule, in particular, in Article 56 TFEU in relation to the (see, to that effect, judgment of19 June 2014, Stroj\u00edrny Prost\u011bjov and ACO Industries T\u00e1bor, C\u201153/13 and C\u201180/13, EU:C:2014:2011, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited) and in Article 63 TFEU in relation to the free movement of capital (see, to that effect, order of 6 September 2018, Patr\u00edcio Teixeira, C\u2011184/18, not published, EU:C:2018:694, paragraphs 15 and 16 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "87ad8aa6-db04-4f63-80e1-f0aed2b1ffed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["However, the objective of those regulations \u2013 which is to promote the freedom of movement for workers, and, in the case of the posting of workers, the , by offering an advantage in the matter of social security to undertakings exercising those freedoms \u2013 might be undermined if the interpretation of Article 14(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 were to make it easier for those undertakings to use EU legislation on that subject with the sole aim of exploiting the differences between the national social security systems. In particular, such exploitation of that legislation would be likely to have a \u2018race to the bottom\u2019 effect on the social security systems of the Member States or might even lead to a reduction in the level of protection that they offer."], "id": "397b51f3-7948-45b2-9ed3-c5f8c41aa516", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["As regards, in the third and last place, the question whether the prohibition established by Paragraph 7(11) of the RStV may be regarded as undermining the freedom to broadcast as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter, or as being contrary to the principle of equal treatment, it should be noted, as a preliminary point, that, having regard to the Court\u2019s settled case-law, once it has been established in the context of the examination under Article 56 TFEU that such regulation is liable to impede the which the Member State concerned considers to be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, in this case the objective of preserving media pluralism, the said legislation must be regarded as implementing Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, so that it must comply with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct over agricultural land), C\u2011235/17, EU:C:2019:432, paragraphs 63 to 65)."], "id": "3dd5ecc2-3e8b-45a2-9649-86b25acf20d8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled that, according to the Court\u2019s settled case-law, the E 101 and A 1 Certificates are intended, like the rules of substantive law laid down in Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 and in Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, to facilitate freedom of movement for workers and (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 February 2018, Altun and Others, C\u2011359/16, EU:C:2018:63, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "8e1ebf80-146e-4e5e-8054-37842f709844", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["It is settled case-law that medical services provided for consideration fall within the scope of the provisions on the , including situations where care is provided in a hospital environment. The freedom to provide services includes the freedom for the recipients of services, including persons in need of medical treatment, to travel to another Member State in order to receive those services there."], "id": "3c0b7141-78dd-47c5-9d09-0b6a638c7b8d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and \u2013 where deemed applicable \u2013 Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in the legislation implementing the aforementioned Decree, and in particular in Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 of 1 December 2017, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, and on the basis of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 4 of the concession agreement for the management of instant lotteries, which provides for the renewal of the same no more than once, changes the expiry date of the concession to 30 September 2028 \u2013 without prejudice to the provisions of Article 4 regarding the division of the concession period into two periods of five and four years respectively (therefore, once the first period of five years commencing on 1 October 2019 has expired, the continuation for the next four years until the expiry date of 30 September 2028 is contingent on a positive appraisal of the management performance by the Customs and Monopolies Agency, to be indicated by 30 March 2024) \u2013 and requires the company to arrange payment of EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018, taking into account that:"], "id": "4906099d-72fe-4059-96ba-00e3632c6edb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["National legislation that restricts the freedom of choice of small local authorities when using a central purchasing authority, by stipulating two exclusively public organisational models with no participation by private persons or undertakings, is therefore not contrary to the objective pursued by Directive 2004/18 of and opening up to undistorted competition in all the Member States, since it does not place any private undertaking at an advantage over its competitors."], "id": "d25f01f2-0e34-4ffe-9132-333e3870336e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 23 to 26 and 61 of Directive 2009/73 state: \u2018(3) The freedoms which the Treaty guarantees the citizens of the Union \u2013 inter alia, the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the \u2013 are achievable only in a fully open market, which enables all consumers freely to choose their suppliers and all suppliers freely to deliver to their customers. (4) However, at present, there are obstacles to the sale of gas on equal terms and without discrimination or disadvantages in the Community. In particular, non-discriminatory network access and an equally effective level of regulatory supervision in each Member State do not yet exist. \u2026 (8) Only the removal of the incentive for vertically integrated undertakings to discriminate against competitors as regards network access and investment can ensure effective unbundling. Ownership unbundling, which implies the appointment of the network owner as the system operator and its independence from any supply and production interests, is clearly an effective and stable way to solve the inherent conflict of interests and to ensure security of supply. For that reason, the European Parliament, in its resolution of 10 July 2007 on prospects for the internal gas and electricity market [(OJ 2008 C 175 E, p. 206),] referred to ownership unbundling at transmission level as the most effective tool by which to promote investments in infrastructure in a non-discriminatory way, fair access to the network for new entrants and transparency in the market. \u2026 \u2026 (14) Where, on 3 September 2009, an undertaking owning a transmission system is part of a vertically integrated undertaking, Member States should therefore be given a choice between ownership unbundling and setting up a system operator or transmission operator which is independent from supply and production interests. \u2026 (16) The full effectiveness of the independent system operator or independent transmission operator solutions should be ensured by way of specific additional rules. The rules on the independent transmission operator provide an appropriate regulatory framework to guarantee fair competition, sufficient investment, access for new market entrants and the integration of gas markets. Effective unbundling through the independent transmission operator provisions should be based on a pillar of organisational measures and measures relating to the governance of transmission system operators and on a pillar of measures relating to investment, connecting new production capacities to the network and market integration through regional cooperation. The independence of the transmission operator should also, inter alia, be ensured through certain \u201ccooling-off\u201d periods during which no management or other relevant activity giving access to the same information as could have been obtained in a managerial position is exercised in the vertically integrated undertaking. The independent transmission operator model of effective unbundling is in line with the requirements laid down by the European Council at its meeting on 8 and 9 March 2007. \u2026 (23) Further measures should be taken in order to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory tariffs for access to transport. Those tariffs should be applicable to all users on a non-discriminatory basis. Where a storage facility, linepack or ancillary service operates in a sufficiently competitive market, access could be allowed on the basis of transparent and non-discriminatory market-based mechanisms. (24) It is necessary to ensure the independence of storage system operators in order to improve third-party access to storage facilities that are technically and/or economically necessary for providing efficient access to the system for the supply of customers. \u2026 (25) Non-discriminatory access to the distribution network determines downstream access to customers at retail level. \u2026 To create a level playing field at retail level, the activities of distribution system operators should therefore be monitored so that they are prevented from taking advantage of their vertical integration as regards their competitive position on the market, in particular in relation to household and small non-household customers. (26) Member States should take concrete measures to assist the wider use of biogas and gas from biomass, the producers of which should be granted non-discriminatory access to the gas system, provided that such access is compatible with the relevant technical rules and safety standards on an ongoing basis. \u2026 (61) Under Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks [and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36)], the [European] Commission may adopt Guidelines to achieve the necessary degree of harmonisation. Such Guidelines, which constitute binding implementing measures, are, also with regard to certain provisions of this Directive, a useful tool which can be adapted quickly where necessary.\u2019"], "id": "04b1e047-9682-4793-a901-bdfbd7be6643", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["While it is for the referring court alone to determine whether any inequality of treatment resulting from the application of the rule laid down in Paragraph 7(11) of the RStV can be objectively justified in the light of the criteria referred to in the previous paragraph, it should be noted that such an examination corresponds, in substance, to that relating to the justification of the restriction on the , carried out in paragraphs 52 to 79 of the present judgment, so that the two examinations must be carried out in the same way."], "id": "9cfbc201-cf77-4f76-990e-46b330143fe8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["By contrast, there is no indication in the file before the Court that the present case concerns, for example, the posting of workers by an undertaking established in one Member State to another Member State. See, for example, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1). In any event, it is settled case-law with respect, for example, to the posting of workers who are nationals of non-member countries by a service provider established in a Member State of the European Union, that national provisions which make the provision of services within national territory by an undertaking established in another Member State subject to the issue of an administrative authorisation or work permit constitute a restriction on the pursuant to Article 56 TFEU. See, judgment of 11 September 2014, Essent Energie Productie (C\u201191/13, EU:C:2014:2206, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited). See also, judgment of 14 November 2018, Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche and Others (C\u201118/17, EU:C:2018:904, paragraphs 42 to 45). Moreover, such restrictions are difficult to justify in order to prevent disturbances on the labour market as posted workers do not gain access to the labour market of the Member State to which they are posted and there are less restrictive means of ensuring that those workers are used for the provision of the service in question."], "id": "cd7d443f-54f8-4297-bd28-2dd8b2cdddd8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["32 See Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in El Hassani (C\u2011403/16, EU:C:2017:659, point 76). Nevertheless, that last requirement has been interpreted rather broadly in the Court\u2019s case-law. The Court has held, for example, that a person may rely on the general principle of protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by public authorities in the sphere of that person\u2019s private activities (see, inter alia, judgment of 6 October 2020, \u00c9tat luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a request for information in tax matters) (C\u2011245/19 and C\u2011246/19, EU:C:2020:795, paragraphs 57 and 58) or the rights of and of freedom of establishment deriving from Articles 56 and 49 TFEU (see judgment of 14 June 2017, Online Games and Others (C\u2011685/15, EU:C:2017:452, paragraph 58))."], "id": "06f93cd7-de40-4795-86f7-9f456332dab3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted that, according to the Court\u2019s settled case-law, a cultural policy may constitute an overriding requirement relating to the general interest which justifies a restriction of the . The maintenance of the pluralism which that policy seeks to safeguard is connected with freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, which freedom is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU legal order and, in particular, by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 December 2007, United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium and Others, C\u2011250/06, EU:C:2007:783, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "fce5c7c9-287e-4853-95d3-26220f686f2c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In the fourth place, the German Government maintains that an interpretation of the Directives in the light of their legal bases and of fundamental rights and freedoms supports its position. It emphasises, first, that the Directives were adopted on the basis of Articles 47(2), 55 and 95 of the EC Treaty, the aim of which is to make it easier to exercise the freedom of establishment and the and the object of which is the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Consequently, those provisions of the Treaty cannot constitute the legal basis for the adoption of provisions which apply to the economic activities of undertakings operating in a third country. Secondly, the Directives impose obligations on vertically integrated undertakings that restrict the free movement of capital, within the meaning of Article 63 TFEU, as well as the freedom of undertakings and those who work for them to conduct a business, enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), as well as the right to property enshrined in Article 17(1) of the Charter. To the extent that the activities of third-country undertakings carried on outside the European Union produce no effects on the internal market, such restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms are not necessary to attain the objective of ensuring the efficient, non-discriminatory operation of transmission systems within the European Union."], "id": "5553c872-5d45-4337-97c4-8eb806b80c1b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In such a situation, one could argue that it would be difficult to conceive that the overriding reason relating to the protection of workers of Member State (B) could be invoked by Member State (A). One could legitimately ask the question whether it is really for Member State (A) \u2013 in the context of posting as part of the of the employer \u2013 to know what is best for the workers of Member State (B). Such an approach might appear patronising, if not overbearing. Besides, there is the delicate question of competence: one may argue that, as a matter of principle, a Member State (A) should only be able to protect workers habitually employed in that very Member State, whereas those employed in another Member State (B) and \u2013 in the context of the exercise of the freedom to provide services of their employer \u2013 posted to Member State (A) should not normally be those whom that Member State can protect."], "id": "f5c9b96e-c7d6-4410-a94b-08e72eeec721", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The award of public contracts by or on behalf of Member States\u2019 authorities has to comply with the principles of the [FEU] Treaty, and in particular the free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and the , as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. However, for public contracts above a certain value, provisions should be drawn up coordinating national procurement procedures so as to ensure that those principles are given practical effect and public procurement is opened up to competition."], "id": "69dda5df-bff6-4443-8156-93aea443d15b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["46. At the outset, I would like to point out that the principal objective of the EU rules on public procurement, and notably Directive 2014/24, is the freedom of establishment and the . (29) As that directive is designed to implement the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to those freedoms, (30) the social services at issue in the main proceedings necessarily fall within the material scope of the same fundamental freedoms."], "id": "f27aa4d7-b74d-4b51-a6be-d167ba57015a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that the activity described in paragraph 44 of the present judgment constitutes a service, within the meaning of Article 57 TFEU, since it is exercised in the territory of a Member State by a national of another Member State. Furthermore, operating a massage salon on the territory of another Member State falls within the scope of the freedom of establishment and the under Article 49 et seq. TFEU."], "id": "fdafcba7-a8ae-412d-b5db-88c7d8322e92", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["See, by analogy, judgment of 5 October 2010, Elchinov (C\u2011173/09, EU:C:2010:581, paragraph 38). See also judgment of 16 May 2006, Watts (C\u2011372/04, EU:C:2006:325, paragraphs 46 and 47). In paragraphs 31 and 34 of the judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others (C\u2011390/12, EU:C:2014:281), the Court stated that the Charter\u2019s field of application so far as concerns action of the Member States is defined in Article 51(1) of the Charter, according to which its provisions are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. The applicability of EU law entails applicability of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter. It follows from the above that when the Member States are implementing Regulation No 883/2004 and Directive 2011/24, the provisions of the Charter are applicable. Moreover, in paragraph 35 of the judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others (C\u2011390/12, EU:C:2014:281), the Court stated that, where a Member State relies on overriding requirements in the public interest in order to justify rules which are liable to obstruct the exercise of the , such justification, provided for by EU law, must be interpreted in the light of the general principles of EU law, in particular the fundamental rights henceforth guaranteed by the Charter. Thus the national rules in question can fall under the exceptions provided for only if they are compatible with these fundamental rights, the observance of which is ensured by the Court."], "id": "5c20896a-32e8-4a5c-a321-78a8965656e6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["18. With regard to case 2, the Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) considered that it would have to return to its examination of the substantive issue. It found that the right to own property enshrined in Article 105 of the Latvian Constitution should be interpreted in the light of the EU principles concerning the freedom of establishment and the ."], "id": "79cc4705-9b26-43b3-ae64-31fe90fb3b0e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case concerning a request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, the Supreme Court (Ireland) puts four questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Those questions concern the interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of . The request has been made in proceedings between the applicant in the main proceedings, VK, and An Bord Plean\u00e1la (Planning Appeals Board, Ireland) concerning the requirement that, in order to represent the applicant before the referring court, the applicant\u2019s foreign lawyer is required to work in conjunction with a lawyer registered with the Bar of Ireland."], "id": "bb845628-1cf2-4367-bc6f-02e970b64aef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In paragraphs 16 and 17 of that judgment the Court stated that the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements does not hinder trade between Member States so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. In such circumstances, the rules on the sale of products from another Member State are deemed not prevent their access to the market and thus fall outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU. The rule of reason approach developed in the field of free movement of goods is not however \u2018set in stone\u2019 and some rare exceptions exist in the case-law which temper that approach. See, for example, judgment of 26 June 1997, Familiapress (C\u2011368/95, EU:C:1997:325). In that case, the Court found that even though the relevant national legislation was directed against a method of sales promotion (and thus a selling arrangement), it nevertheless affected the actual content of the products. The Court, however, has not adopted a similar rule of reason approach in the field of in accordance with which a particular type or category of national measure is deemed, in principle, not to impede access to the market. A case-by-case, rather than a more formalistic approach, which identifies or singles out particular categories of measures has, thus, consistently been adopted. See, judgment of 10 May 1995, Alpine Investments (C\u2011384/93, EU:C:1995:126, paragraphs 33 to 38). In the latter judgment, the Court stated that the reason why legislation imposing certain selling arrangements in respect of goods falls outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU is that it does not prevent the access of imported products to the market of a Member State or impede them any more than it impedes the access of domestic products. In that case however, the prohibition of cold calling potential clients in another Member State imposed on financial intermediaries who offered off-market commodities futures was held to be a restriction of the freedom to provide services. Despite the fact that I may think that cold calling is a quintessential selling method/arrangement, the Court found that no analogy could be drawn with the judgment of 24 November 1993, Keck and Mithouard (C\u2011267/91 and C\u2011268/91, EU:C:1993:905) as the prohibition of cold calling in question directly affected access to the market in services."], "id": "15c3316b-ed19-43d3-9e1f-4dd7e01f87a7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["However, as is apparent from paragraphs 60, 61 and 72 of the present judgment, that requirement can be relied on, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law relating to Article 56 TFEU and point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/24, only in certain situations, listed exhaustively in that case-law and in sub-points (i) and (ii) of the latter provision, which do not include a medical consultation. It follows that the restriction of the contained in the prior authorisation in the Member State of residence of such consultation in another Member State cannot be justified by reference to the objectives set out in the previous paragraph and does not comply with the conditions provided for in point (a)(i) and (ii) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/24."], "id": "bf612d46-1aae-4ac8-9612-7c30b5cade65", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Do the principles of freedom of establishment and laid down in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU [and] Articles 15 and 16 of [the Framework Directive], which are intended to safeguard pluralism and freedom of expression, together with the EU-law principle of proportionality, preclude the application of national legislation concerning public broadcasting and audiovisual media services, such as that of Italy, contained in [the provision at issue in the main proceedings] and Article 43(14) [of TUSMAR], according to which the revenues relevant for determining the second threshold of 10% include those of undertakings that are neither subsidiaries nor under a dominant influence, but are merely \u2018affiliates\u2019 within the meaning of Article 2359 of the Codice Civile (Civil Code) (referred to in Article 43(14) [of TUSMAR]), even if it is not possible to exert any influence on the information being broadcast by those undertakings?"], "id": "f08cd090-b6b6-44e9-a0ce-2651119f74bd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Next, it should be noted that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to demonstrate, supporting its argument with precise evidence, why the prohibition at issue is the only measure capable of attaining the desired objectives, so that none of the measures less restrictive of the suggested by the Commission would be sufficiently effective to attain those objectives."], "id": "4a7ce7ad-cfad-4ca6-b7cf-2fb785cd971d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["As regards, in the second place, the examination of the conformity of a national measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings with regard to the fundamental guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU, it should be recalled that all measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of that freedom must be regarded as restrictions on that freedom (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 May 2017, Vanderborght, C\u2011339/15, EU:C:2017:335, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "7a678a62-512e-4d3b-b672-179f84975e5e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Do the principles of freedom of establishment and laid down in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC [on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services] aimed at safeguarding pluralism and freedom of expression, together with the EU law principle of proportionality, preclude the application of national legislation concerning public broadcasting and audiovisual and radio media services, such as that of Italy, contained in Article 43(11) and (14) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005], according to which the revenues relevant for determining the second threshold of 10% are also applicable to undertakings that are not subsidiaries or under a dominant influence, but are merely\u201caffiliates\u201d within the meaning of Article 2359 of the Codice Civile (Civil Code) (referred to in Article 43(14)), even if it is not possible to exert any influence on the information being broadcast by those undertakings?"], "id": "17c4ca19-56a7-42a5-962a-4caccb57157b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["However, it is important to note that Member States, in making use of this option, must respect the fundamental rules of the TFEU, in particular those relating to the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the , as well as the principles deriving from them, such as the principles of equal treatment and proportionality (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 October 2019, Irgita, C\u2011285/18, EU:C:2019:829, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited), which are, moreover, reflected in Article 18 of Directive 2014/24."], "id": "f93a1724-dd2a-4e63-aa56-7b586f949513", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, it is apparent from the Court\u2019s case-law that, where a Member State relies on overriding requirements in the public interest in order to justify rules which are liable to obstruct the exercise of the , such justification, provided for by EU law, must be interpreted in the light of the general principles of EU law, in particular the fundamental rights henceforth guaranteed by the Charter. Thus the national rules in question can fall under the exceptions provided for only if they are compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which is ensured by the Court (judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others, C\u2011390/12, EU:C:2014:281, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "290b33f8-71d5-4305-8883-7051b817306f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Taking the view that its activity constituted an Information Society service to which the principle of the exclusion of prior authorisation laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/31 applies, Star Taxi App lodged a prior administrative complaint requesting revocation of Decision No 626/2017. That request was refused on the ground that the disputed rules, first, had become necessary on account of the considerable scale on which unauthorised legal entities were found to be unlawfully taking bookings and, secondly, did not infringe the by electronic means since they provided a framework for an intermediation service in connection with the activity of passenger transport by taxi."], "id": "ab47464c-deb0-4d01-bf8f-2659b4c38711", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Although under Article 11(2) of Directive 2004/18 contracting authorities that use a central purchasing body are themselves not subject, in the situations to which that article refers, to the public procurement procedures laid down by that directive, under the same article that central purchasing body is subject to the obligation on contracting authorities to comply with the procedures laid down by the directive. The main objective of the rules of EU law in the field of public contracts, namely and the opening up of undistorted competition in all the Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2016, Undis Servizi, C\u2011553/15, EU:C:2016:935, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited), is thereby secured."], "id": "d39709ec-d24b-4af0-a073-315602fc5aa6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court asks whether the exemption from corporation tax provided for in Article 22(3) of the Corporation Tax Code and the exemption from withholding tax provided for in Article 22(10) in the case of dividends paid to UCITS formed under Portuguese law and having their seat in Portugal infringe the freedom of movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU) and the (Article 56 TFEU)."], "id": "e3cc5385-20fe-4056-bf22-1171c6378537", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Article 1(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2018/957 does not have as its purpose to facilitate the pursuit of a professional activity on a self-employed basis (the provision of cross-border services), but actually undermines the pursuit of such activities. The replacement of the concept of \u2018minimum rates of pay\u2019 with that of \u2018remuneration\u2019 and the new regime applicable to long-term posted workers together give rise to unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the . There is therefore a contradiction in using the provisions governing the harmonisation of freedom of movement as the legal basis for that directive."], "id": "21a6c1f2-d131-4856-a10d-8678335ad28d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Urgent preliminary ruling procedure \u2014 EEA Agreement \u2014 Non-discrimination \u2014 Article 36 \u2014 \u2014 Scope \u2014 Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis \u2014 Agreement on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway \u2014 Extradition to a third State of an Icelandic national \u2014 Protection of a Member State\u2019s nationals against extradition \u2014 No equivalent protection for nationals of another State \u2014 Icelandic national who was granted asylum under national law before acquiring Icelandic citizenship \u2014 Restriction of freedom of movement \u2014 Justification based on the prevention of impunity \u2014 Proportionality \u2014 Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)"], "id": "4c4e5c16-e281-4c99-8ccd-b8a572afac2c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to the arguments presented by the Republic of Poland, the contested directive is such as to develop the on a fair basis, which is the main objective pursued by that directive, since it ensures that the terms and conditions of employment of posted workers are as close as possible to those of workers employed by undertakings established in the host Member State, by providing that those posted workers have the benefit of terms and conditions of employment in that Member State that offer greater protection than those provided for by Directive 96/71."], "id": "9361a5b4-c4e8-467d-8032-229fb5bbd02e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission maintains that, in accordance with Article 2 of Directive 2006/123, and also Article 4(1) thereof, which refers to the definition of services included in the FEU Treaty, the scope of that directive includes teaching activities and training courses that are financed essentially by private contributions. Consequently, private institutions carrying out teaching and scientific research activities in Hungary on a temporary basis are justified in relying on the right to the under that directive."], "id": "ace6127a-470b-4e79-b853-c5b76c6f2f17", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be noted that, first, the protection of consumers, in particular recipients of legal services provided by persons involved in the administration of justice and, second, the proper administration of justice are objectives which feature among those which may be regarded as overriding requirements in the public interest capable of justifying a restriction on the (judgment of 18 May 2017, Lahorgue, C\u201199/16, EU:C:2017:391, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "46674334-6103-415b-97ed-2d6c64b3184b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["The Court also observed that the measures harmonising those roadworthiness testing services were adopted on the basis of the provisions of the TFEU on transport. Contrary to the view expressed by the Commission in the instant case, that finding seems to me to be decisive for the interpretation of Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123. That provision expressly refers to the title of the TFEU relating to transport (now Title VI of the TFEU). This is because, under Article 58(1) TFEU, the in the field of transport is governed by the title of the TFEU relating to transport. Directive 2006/123 cannot therefore regulate the freedom to provide services in that field. By adopting the directives relating to vehicle roadworthiness testing services on the basis of the provisions of Title VI of the TFEU, the EU legislature implicitly included those services in the field of transport within the meaning of both Article 58(1) TFEU and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123. That choice of legal basis for the harmonisation measures is therefore decisive for the exclusion of the services at issue from the scope of Directive 2006/123."], "id": "df1a2e0a-e339-4bf0-b016-2ee33c1b02be", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Some of those criteria have also been mentioned by the Court in the context of primary law provisions on and freedom of establishment. See, to that effect, for example, judgments of 3 June 2010, Sporting Exchange (C\u2011203/08, EU:C:2010:307, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited), and of 13 February 2014, Sokoll-Seebacher (C\u2011367/12, EU:C:2014:68, paragraph 27), where the Court required prior authorisation schemes to be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance by the undertakings concerned."], "id": "9315e028-f07b-4074-839f-79ae3f888925", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to provide services", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, as regards the referring court\u2019s uncertainty as to whether the territorial restriction at issue in the main proceedings is compatible with the principles of the and the opening up to competition as far as possible in the field of public service contracts which underlie Directive 2004/18, which that court believes may give rise to exclusive operating zones for central purchasing bodies, mindful of the reasons set out in the examination of the first and second questions, it must be held that a provision of national law that limits the operating area of central purchasing bodies to the respective territories of the local authorities that created them does not, as such, place any private undertaking at an advantage over its competitors and thereby infringe those principles."], "id": "9546d798-5fba-4b83-b6fa-fe093ceaa8ef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has held that, although Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) (\u2018Regulation No 1408/71\u2019), which were repealed and replaced by Regulation No 492/2011 and by Regulation No 883/2004 respectively, do not have the same scope of application ratione personae, the fact nonetheless remains that, since Regulation No 1612/68 is of general application as regards the free movement of workers, Article 7(2) thereof may apply to social advantages which, at the same time, come specifically within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 (judgment of 5 May 2011, Commission v Germany, C\u2011206/10, EU:C:2011:283, paragraph 39; see also, to that effect, judgment of 12 May 1998, Mart\u00ednez Sala, C\u201185/96, EU:C:1998:217, paragraph 27)."], "id": "ac70d694-7cad-4231-b367-f0e6f3fe337c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["67 It should, however, be noted that, in such a case, Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 in its two versions provides that, where the application of that regulation results in legislation being established which does not correspond to that applicable under Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, the legislation to which that person was subject under Regulation No 1408/71 is to continue to apply, unless that person requests that the legislation resulting from Regulation No 883/2004 be applied to him or her."], "id": "5e09590e-e2cd-4d7f-a61b-13147e21ec45", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["73 Consequently, the answer to the question referred is that Article 14(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, Article 13(1)(a) and Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 in its two versions, and Article 11(5) of Regulation No 883/2004 as amended in 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that the legislation applicable to the flight and cabin crew of an airline, established in a Member State, which crew is not covered by E101 certificates and which work for 45 minutes per day in premises intended to be used by staff, known as the \u2018crew room\u2019 which that airline has in the territory of another Member State in which that flight and cabin crew reside and which, for the remaining working time, are on board that airline\u2019s aircraft is the legislation of the latter Member State. Costs"], "id": "e414b9b6-131b-4870-849d-cd3b1b0fff50", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of schemes to employed persons, to self-employed person and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 1) (\u2018Regulation No 1408/71\u2019), provided, in Article 14c(b), which is in Title II:"], "id": "5669eead-bbce-47ab-839e-45b5b07dbb69", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["According to the third recital of Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of , \u2018the implementation of the principle of equal treatment in matters of social security does not prejudice the provisions relating to the protection of women on the ground of maternity; \u2026 in this respect, Member States may adopt specific provisions for women to remove existing instances of unequal treatment\u2019."], "id": "16a5a4dd-7002-4bcb-a25b-435db33be19e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["by conferring on the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy (Supreme Court) (\u2018the Disciplinary Chamber\u2019), whose independence and impartiality are not guaranteed, jurisdiction to hear and determine cases having a direct impact on the status of judges and trainee judges and the performance of their office, such as, first, applications for authorisation to initiate criminal proceedings against judges and trainee judges or to detain them and, second, cases relating to employment and law that concern judges of the S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy (Supreme Court) and cases relating to the compulsory retirement of those judges, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;"], "id": "9197f6c8-6caf-4cc5-99bc-3b8405ad1b85", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that the aid scheme which is the subject of the contested decision differs from the corresponding schemes in the cases which gave rise to the judgments in Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission and Italy v Commission. The arrangements at issue in those cases had been implemented through different administrative measures, involving the exercise of a certain margin of discretion, by virtue of which the applicants were granted actual aid, whereas the aid declared incompatible by the contested decision consisted of exemptions from contributions applicable to all operators in the sector."], "id": "851f6ce6-2370-4301-b606-c4462c8cc8a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social Security", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, with respect to Cases C\u2011624/18 and C\u2011625/18, the referring court queries whether, given the absence of judges appointed to the Disciplinary Chamber, it can disapply national provisions conferring jurisdiction on the Disciplinary Chamber and take jurisdiction itself, due to the need to ensure effective protection of the litigants\u2019 rights under EU law with respect to age discrimination. The referring court states that, since there is no court which would be able to provide legal protection in the main proceedings, those provisions, in so far as they exclude the Chamber of Labour Law and , should be regarded as incompatible with Article 47 of the Charter and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/78. It also indicates that this question could become irrelevant because, while the main proceedings are taking place, posts were being filled in the newly created chambers of the Supreme Court."], "id": "8fda895c-0fda-458c-b079-102fe7771fc1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["What is examined by the Court is, the outcome of the national rules governing the practical operation of the system in question. In other words, the Court asks itself the following question: has the national legal framework been designed in such a way that entities operating within the system in question are to be regarded as offering goods or services on a market or, to be more precise, in competition with each other? It is only where the answer is in the negative that the activity in question is classified as non-economic, and the competition rules thus become inapplicable."], "id": "112201e5-2499-4f84-9bf7-743aa575f887", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the severance grant, referred to in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, is not an end-of-service allowance to which the staff member concerned is automatically entitled at the time when his contract is terminated or expires, but is a financial measure coming under provisions of the Staff Regulations on (judgment of 2 March 2016, FX v Commission, F\u201159/15, EU:F:2016:27, paragraph 32). That provision, which is subject to provisions of EU law which give entitlement to financial benefits, must be interpreted strictly (see judgment of 22 May 2012, AU v Commission, F\u2011109/10, EU:F:2012:66, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). Moreover, as is apparent from the very wording of that provision, according to which the provision applies \u2018by way of derogation\u2019 from Article 12(1)(b) of that annex, it must be interpreted strictly."], "id": "8c8e235e-12f8-4c4a-b9b6-039e28f62d88", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should, admittedly, be borne in mind that that regulation does not establish a common scheme of , but allows different national social schemes to exist and its sole objective is to ensure the coordination of those schemes in order to guarantee that the right to free movement of persons can be exercised effectively. Therefore, according to the Court\u2019s settled case-law, Member States retain the power to organise their own social security schemes (judgment of 28 June 2018, Crespo Rey, C\u20112/17, EU:C:2018:511, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "f7a17b31-7dee-47d3-bd91-6d7b910bd4c9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Commission states that: \u2013 the object of Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 is to ensure, in accordance with Article 45(2) TFEU, equality of treatment in matters of , without distinction based on nationality, for the workers concerned, by abolishing all discrimination in that regard deriving from the national legislation of the Member States; (63) \u2013 Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 also gives concrete expression to the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 45(2) TFEU, which protects migrant workers not only against direct discrimination based on nationality, but also all indirect forms of discrimination; and \u2013 that provision covers all the social and tax advantages which, whether or not linked to a contract of employment, are generally granted to national workers primarily because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory. (64)"], "id": "8b124aa6-cf15-4545-8413-f389f788c172", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, as is clear from the case-law referred to in paragraphs 88 and 89 of the present order, the fact that, owing to the application of the national provisions to which the fourth complaint in the main action relates, examination of cases relating to employment and law that concern the judges of the S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy (Supreme Court), those relating to the compulsory retirement of those judges and those relating to authorisation to initiate criminal proceedings against judges or trainee judges or to place them in provisional detention is, pending delivery of the final judgment, within the jurisdiction of a body whose independence might not be guaranteed, namely the Disciplinary Chamber, is liable to undermine, during that period, the independence of the S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy (Supreme Court) and the ordinary courts."], "id": "b7f53929-c27c-4d73-97dc-16bd3bfd0add", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["If there is abuse of successive temporary contracts, can the conversion of the temporary regulated relationship into an indefinite [non-permanent] or permanent relationship be regarded as satisfying the objectives of Directive 1999/70 and the Framework Agreement only if the temporary regulated employee who has been the victim of this misuse enjoys exactly the same working conditions as permanent regulated employees (as regards , promotion, opportunities to cover vacant posts, training, leave of absence, determination of administrative status, sick leave and other permitted absences, pension rights, termination of employment and participation in selection competitions to fill vacancies and obtain promotion) in accordance with the principles of permanence and security of employment, with all associated rights and obligations, on equal terms with permanent regulated IT specialists?"], "id": "18be9df7-e4e6-4228-b51e-f9e27cc82326", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["25. According to that court, in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law, the retirement pensions received by the appellants in the main proceedings come under the concept of \u2018pay\u2019 within the meaning of Article 157 TFEU, and they are to be regarded as benefits paid under an \u2018occupational scheme\u2019 within the meaning of Protocol (No 33) concerning Article 157 TFEU and Chapter 2 of Title II of Directive 2006/54."], "id": "65a864f5-3a2a-431f-996d-6b566c024be5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Although Part II of the contested decision, which is entitled \u2018Description\u2019, does not, stricto sensu, form part of the grounds on which the operative part was reached, reference should nevertheless be made to it in order to determine which measures are actually covered by the operative part. In recital 4 of the contested decision, the Commission lists the measures in respect of which \u2018the formal investigation procedure was initiated\u2019. Among these, point 2 of recital 4 includes \u2018additional measures to assist fish farmers and fishermen throughout France\u2019. The first indent of point 2 refers to the \u2018additional measure reducing contributions for all \u2026 fishermen (from 15 April to 15 October 2000) of mainland France and the overseas departments\u2019. Section II.B of the contested decision sets out the additional measures referred to in point 2 of recital 4. Recital 17 of that decision, set out in point 2 of that section, which is entitled \u2018Reduction of social security contributions for fish farmers and fishermen\u2019, states that \u2018the Minister \u2026 decided (decisions issued in [two] circulars \u2026) to grant all undertakings in the sector a 50% reduction in social security contributions for the period 15 April 2000 to 15 October 2000 for fishermen\u2019. Recital 18 provides that \u2018this reduction applied to employers\u2019 and employees\u2019 contributions\u2019. Lastly, recital 20 states that \u2018the rate of reduction of contributions to the ENIM was 50% for both employees\u2019 and employers\u2019 contributions\u2019. Thereafter, the contested decision makes no further mention of employers\u2019 and employees\u2019 contributions separately, but refers only to \u2018social security contributions\u2019."], "id": "4cd74567-f58d-403b-a2e8-ae75be954c83", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, in the first place, as the referring court suggests, it is appropriate to consider not only the persons enrolled in the Special Scheme, but also all the workers who are subject to the Spanish general scheme, within which those persons enrolled in the Special Scheme are included. Thus, the legislation at issue in the main proceedings applies to all persons enrolled in that General Scheme."], "id": "49417162-979b-47dd-a439-fc377a487194", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be recalled that the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, one of which is Article 14(2)(a) of that regulation, and the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 883/2004, one of which is Article 13(1)(b) of that regulation, constitute uniform and comprehensive systems of conflict of law rules. Those provisions are intended not only to prevent the simultaneous application of a number of national legislative systems and the complications which might ensue, but also to ensure that persons falling within the scope of one of those regulations are not left without protection because there is no legislation which is applicable to them (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 February 2017, Tolley, C\u2011430/15, EU:C:2017:74, paragraph 58, and of 25 October 2018, Walltopia, C\u2011451/17, EU:C:2018:861, paragraph 41)."], "id": "b1bca413-fc6c-475c-bdfb-5f86f1e36522", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, according to the referring court, the question arises as to whether the effects attached to E 101 and A 1 Certificates, issued, in the present case, respectively, under Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, as regards the determination of the law applicable to the scheme and to the declarations of the employer to the social protection bodies, extend to the determination of the applicable law as regards the law applicable with respect to employment law and the obligations incumbent on the employer, arising from the application of the employment law of the State in which the workers concerned by those certificates carry out their work, and, in particular, extend to the declarations which must be made by the employer prior to the engagement of those workers."], "id": "73b531e4-3fff-4979-9ff6-256ec05d3365", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the second requirement referred to in Article 1(c) of Regulation No 883/2004, it should be noted that the term \u2018insured person\u2019 was introduced by that regulation primarily for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Title III thereof, headed \u2018Sickness, maternity and equivalent paternity benefits\u2019, given that the provisions coordinating sickness require that the person be \u2018insured\u2019 in a Member State. Y receives an old-age pension under the AOW and, on that basis, is entitled to the healthcare provided for, inter alia, in Article 24 of that regulation, which, although it does not expressly refer to \u2018insured persons\u2019, forms part of Chapter 1 and therefore concerns one of the \u2018branches of covered by Title III\u2019, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 1(c) of that regulation."], "id": "04805066-530a-4e27-8512-1c4b0bf08e79", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As the governments which have submitted observations before the Court have pointed out, it also follows from the case-law that primary EU law cannot guarantee to an insured person that moving to another Member State will be neutral in terms of . Accordingly, the Court has already acknowledged that the application, possibly as a result of the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, of national legislation that is less favourable as regards social security benefits may in principle be compatible with the requirements of primary EU law on freedom of movement for persons."], "id": "0a6dc194-7b80-4b5c-984d-78f3061eefc9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, in the present case, in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law cited in paragraphs 43, 44 and 46 above, the competent institution of the Member State of origin, namely the Republic of Austria, cannot be criticised for refusing to grant the respondent in the main proceedings the rehabilitation allowance. That refusal did not have the effect of excluding from the scope of the legislation at issue a person to whom that legislation is applicable pursuant to Regulation No 883/2004 and, therefore, of leaving him or her without cover because there is no legislation which is applicable to him or her."], "id": "2d7ce7f7-e87c-416b-9c1b-4678b55d23ca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In his view, those activities are exempt from VAT under the national provision transposing Article 132(1)(g) of the VAT Directive, namely Article 44(1)(o) of the Luxembourg Law on VAT, which recognises an exemption from VAT for the supply of services closely linked to and welfare work carried out by bodies that have been recognised by the competent public authorities as being devoted to social wellbeing."], "id": "9195c62c-90fe-47e7-9cd0-989997a7c4fe", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004, read together with Article 3(3) and Article 70(2) of that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a national of another Member State and his or her minor children, all of whom have, in the former Member State, a right of residence based on Article 10 of Regulation No 492/2011, by virtue of those children attending school in that State, and are there covered by a system within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, are automatically and in all circumstances excluded from entitlement to special non-contributory cash benefits."], "id": "ce6ea90e-acb5-4c21-8aa4-fc8c1e628115", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The Court stated that, although it is for the legislation of each Member State to lay down the conditions for creating the right to become affiliated to a scheme, the Member States are nevertheless required when setting those conditions to abide by the provisions of EU law. In accordance with settled case-law, the conditions establishing the right to affiliate to a social security scheme cannot have the effect of excluding from the scope of the legislation at issue persons to whom, pursuant to Regulation No 883/2004, that legislation is applicable."], "id": "52cf8447-7c7c-4333-bc4d-77d94c5fa848", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As is clear from the wording of that provision, the exemption for which it provides applies to goods and services which are \u2018closely linked to welfare and work\u2019 and \u2018supplied by bodies governed by public law or by other bodies recognised by the Member State concerned as being devoted to social wellbeing\u2019 (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 November 2012, Zimmermann, C\u2011174/11, EU:C:2012:716, paragraph 21)."], "id": "cef8966d-4dca-4be0-85a7-0c82343e36b5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Primary law cannot guarantee to an insured person that moving to a Member State other than his Member State of origin will be neutral as regards , in particular as regards sickness benefits or old-age pensions, or even family allowances. It must be borne in mind that the movement of a worker to another Member State may be, depending on the case and due to the disparities between the systems and legislation of the Member States, more or less advantageous for the person concerned in terms of social protection (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 October 2016, Adrien and Others, C\u2011466/15, EU:C:2016:749, paragraph 27, and of 18 July 2017, Erzberger, C\u2011566/15, EU:C:2017:562, paragraph 34)."], "id": "5c3d7c82-a9fa-4d6c-bce9-3596bcabe762", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Article 3(1) of Legislative Decree No 23/2015 provides that, in the event of unjustified collective redundancy, the court is to declare the end of the employment relationship and \u2018order the employer to pay compensation, not subject to contributions, the amount of which shall be equivalent to 2 months\u2019 worth of the last reference salary for the purpose of calculating severance pay in respect of each year of service, such indemnity being in any event not less than 4 months\u2019 remuneration and not more than 24 months\u2019 remuneration.\u2019 Under decreto legge n. 87 \u2013 Disposizioni urgenti per la dignit\u00e0 dei lavoratori e delle imprese (Decree-Law No 87 on the establishment of urgent provisions for the dignity of workers and enterprises) of 12 July 2018 (GURI No 161 of 13 July 2018), that range is between 6 and 36 months\u2019 of salary."], "id": "3edb9baa-8f00-455d-a9fd-a3c993c52d40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["15 In those circumstances, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l\u2019Emilia Romagna (Regional Administrative Court, Emilia Romagna, Italy) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018(1) Do Articles 20, 21, 31, 33 and 34 of the [Charter], [Clauses 2 and 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70], [Clause 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81], Article 7 of Directive [2003/88] and Articles 1 and 2(2)(a) of Directive [2000/78] preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation set out in [Law No 374/1991] and Legislative Decree 92/2016, as consistently interpreted in the case-law, under which giudici di pace (magistrates), as lay judges, in addition to not being treated in the same way as giudici togati [ordinary judges] as regards emoluments and pension and entitlements, are completely excluded from all forms of pension and social security protection afforded to employees in the public sector? (2) Do EU principles relating to the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, in particular Article 47 of the [Charter], preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation under which giudici di pace, as lay judges, in addition to not being treated in the same way as giudici togati [ordinary judges] as regards emoluments and pension and social security entitlements, are completely excluded from all forms of pension and social security protection afforded to employees in the public sector? (3) Does Clause 5 of the [framework agreement on fixed-term work] preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation under which the fixed period of service of giudici di pace, as lay judges, originally set at eight years (four plus four years), may be systematically renewed for a further four years without any provision for effective and dissuasive penalties, instead of the employment relationship being converted into one of indefinite duration?\u2019"], "id": "f4e708fe-3beb-4260-bd79-d5b4b11f0442", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["151. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should: (1) Declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the family allowance and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under: \u2013 Articles 7 and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of systems, and \u2013 Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; (2) Declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the Familienbonus Plus (Family Bonus Plus tax credit), the sole earner\u2019s allowance, the single parent\u2019s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments for migrant workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011; (3) Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs; (4) Order the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, and the Kingdom of Norway and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs."], "id": "fcb4b0ed-df23-43e8-b3e7-2792595b2aa4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In support of that action, Team Power Europe submitted that the worker in question in the main proceedings fell within the scope of application of Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 and fulfilled the conditions to which the issue of an A1 certificate is subject under that provision. As regards, more specifically, the question whether it normally carries out its activities on the Bulgarian territory, Team Power Europe submits that it carries out the substantial activities of selection, recruitment and maintenance of cover of temporary agency workers on that territory. That activity is not equivalent to the performance of purely internal management activities. Moreover, the fact that its turnover is generated through the performance of transactions made with user undertakings established in a Member State other than that in which it is established does not mean that it carries on its activities outside that Member State."], "id": "2e4e681f-199b-490e-b8f5-5bcf0322f737", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be recalled that Regulation No 883/2004, the detailed rules for the application of which are laid down in Regulation No 987/2009, seeks, as is apparent from recitals 1 and 45 thereof and from Article 42 EC, now Article 48 TFEU, on the basis inter alia of which it was adopted, to ensure the free movement of workers within the European Union, while respecting the special characteristics of national legislation, and to coordinate Member States\u2019 social security systems in order to guarantee that the right to free movement of persons can be exercised effectively and, thereby, to contribute towards improving the standard of living and conditions of employment of persons who move within the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2020, AFMB and Others, C\u2011610/18, EU:C:2020:565, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "efa6f424-9c23-4de4-9355-6537283ad1b0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In this case, as regards the reductions in employees\u2019 contributions granted by the French Republic to fishermen for the period from 15 April to 15 October 2000, it is common ground that those contributions are not borne by the fisheries undertakings, in their capacity as employers, but are payable by the employees, those employees being the actual beneficiaries of those reductions. It is apparent from the order for reference that, under the applicable provisions of national legislation, the content of which has been reproduced in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, those undertakings, in their capacity as employers, are only required to deduct those contributions from the remunerations of their employees on each salary slip with a view to paying them to the competent bodies."], "id": "ca436551-0115-4c69-b750-c5785b02b70d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["63. Since the exclusion of certain matters from the material scope of Regulation No 44/2001 gave rise to the risk of irreconcilable decisions, rules had to be adopted to govern those circumstances. That risk in the field of arbitration is expressly acknowledged in the Opinions of Advocate General Darmon in Rich and Advocate General Kokott in Allianz and Generali Assicurazioni Generali (56). By virtue of Article 1(2) thereof many important matters are deemed to fall outside the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, including the status or legal capacity of natural persons, wills and succession, bankruptcy, insolvency and . I therefore concur with the Club, the German Government, the United Kingdom and the Commission in their submissions to the effect that the rule of law and the internal legal order of Member States would be seriously disturbed were their courts obliged to ignore judgments on all of those matters, delivered within their jurisdiction by other courts of that same Member State, and which may have acquired the force of res judicata, in favour of a \u2013 potentially subsequent \u2013 judgment emanating from a court of another Member State adjudicating upon the same issue. Absent clear provisions to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude the EU legislature did not intend to enact provisions that would have such a disturbing impact on the rule of law in the Member States."], "id": "5c260841-cc41-4a35-a8b1-4a2a1e227c2b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["12. Article 10(1) of the LGSS states that special schemes are to be established for occupational activities which, by reason of their nature, special conditions of time and place in which they are carried out, or of the type of production process, require the establishment of such schemes in order to ensure the proper application of benefits. Article 10(2)(a) of the LGSS provides that, among others, self-employed workers are to be enrolled in special schemes."], "id": "ab0c1f6a-2474-4c9f-8b6f-5c95c7da0c05", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["107. In any case, the decision on the location of the seat of an agency can hardly be considered a purely political decision, at least if the criteria stated in both of the present cases are to be given any credence. The respective selection rules have laid down several criteria that are all more technical in nature, namely the date when the agency could be set up on site; the accessibility of the location; the existence of adequate education facilities for the children of agency staff and appropriate access to the labour market; and the and medical care for children and spouses. (64) Geographical balance appears to be the only criterion that is predominantly political in nature."], "id": "03e5793c-10c6-4707-a23e-391d711ff09b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["74 In those circumstances, the Court has found that factors such as whether the services are in the public interest, and the fact that the services are covered by the scheme or are supplied under contracts concluded with public authorities of a Member State, at prices fixed by those contracts and whose costs are partially borne by the social security institutions of that Member State, are factors that may be taken into account (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 June 2010, CopyGene, C\u2011262/08, EU:C:2010:328, paragraphs 69 and 70, and of 5 March 2020, Idealmed III, C\u2011211/18, EU:C:2020:168, paragraph 32)."], "id": "af7163db-94e3-44d7-8122-ab00c2647fbd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The obligation to consult the Staff Committee is limited to the amendment of acts of general application (order of 9 November 2017, Bowles v ECB, T\u2011564/16, not published, EU:T:2017:816, paragraph 48). Article 48 of the Conditions of Employment provides that the Staff Committee \u2018shall represent the general interests of all members of staff in relation to contracts of employment; staff regulations and remuneration; employment, working, health and safety conditions at the ECB, cover and pension schemes\u2019. Moreover, according to Article 49 of the Conditions of Employment, \u2018the Staff Committee shall be consulted prior to changes in these Conditions of Employment, the Staff Rules and related matters as defined under paragraph 48 above\u2019."], "id": "6e3b2368-6588-47ce-ae6b-ef72abade58d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["67 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, Clause 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997 and which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for an entitlement for magistrates to 30 days\u2019 paid annual leave or to a and pension scheme deriving from the employment relationship, such as that provided for ordinary judges, if that magistrate comes within the definition of \u2018part-time worker\u2019 within the meaning of the framework agreement on part-time work and/or \u2018fixed-term worker\u2019 within the meaning of the framework agreement on fixed-term work and is in a comparable situation to that of an ordinary judge."], "id": "c2723155-1c69-46da-9dfe-03a6201f5775", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As recital 26 of Directive 2011/98 states, that European Union law does not detract from the power of the Member States to organise their systems. In the absence of harmonisation at European Union level, it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine the conditions for the grant of social security benefits. The fact nevertheless remains that, when exercising that power, Member States must comply with European Union law (see, to that effect, judgment 5 October 2010, Elchinov, C\u2011173/09, EU:C:2010:581, paragraph 40)."], "id": "80b3a7ec-17c2-42e1-b7de-b92fc6ee6ab4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that childbirth allowance is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation No 883/2004. It is of little importance, in that regard, whether that allowance has a dual function, namely, as the referring court states, both that of a contribution to the costs resulting from the birth or adoption of a child and that of a premium intended to encourage the birth rate, since one of those functions relates to the branch of referred to in that provision (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 July 1992, Hughes, C\u201178/91, EU:C:1992:331, paragraphs 19 and 20, and of 15 March 2001, Offermanns, C\u201185/99, EU:C:2001:166, paragraph 45)."], "id": "256a0253-f32e-4001-bf4f-f3c2ba8788ca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Article 7b of the Arbeitsvertragsrechts-Anpassungsgesetz (Law adapting employment contract law), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (\u2018the AVRAG\u2019), deals with the rights of employees against foreign employers based in a Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area. In essence, it provides that a worker who is posted to work in Austria by an employer who has his registered office in a Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area other than Austria is automatically to have the right, during the period of posting and without prejudice to the laws and regulations applicable to the employment relationship, to at least the statutory minimum remuneration, fixed by regulation or by a collective agreement, which, in the workplace, must be paid to comparable workers by comparable employers. Moreover, a person having his registered office in a Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area other than Austria is to be considered to be an employer in respect of workers placed at his disposal who are posted to Austria for the purpose of performing work. Employers are required to declare, at least one week before the start of the work in question, the use of workers who have been posted to work in Austria. Such a declaration is to be made separately for each secondment and is to contain the following information: (i) name, address and professional licence or purpose of the employer\u2019s business; (ii) the overall period covered by the secondment, as well as the beginning and foreseeable duration of employment of the different workers in Austria, the normal working time and place conditions agreed for the different workers; (iii) the amount of remuneration due to the individual workers under Austrian legal provisions and the beginning of the employment relationship with the employer; (iv) the place (exact address) of employment in Austria (also other places of intervention in Austria); and (v) the type of activity and use of the worker, taking into account the relevant Austrian collective contract. Where there is no obligation for posted workers to join in Austria, employers are required to keep available documents relating to the workers\u2019 declaration to social security (social security document E 101 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, social security document A1 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 883/04), as well as a copy of the declaration of posting at the place of performance of the work (or intervention) on the national territory or to make them directly accessible in electronic form to the services of the authority responsible for collecting the contributions."], "id": "cf8addc4-851e-4546-b19f-afa334133adc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["3 Regulation No 1408/71 was repealed and replaced as from 1 May 2010. Since the disputes in the main proceedings concern the failure to pay contributions between June 2006 and February 2010 and insurance premiums between January 2008 and January 2013, they are capable of falling within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71. That regulation included Title II, headed \u2018Determination of the legislation applicable\u2019, within which Articles 13 to 17 are found."], "id": "165d31b6-b043-4eb1-bc49-cf65c2250792", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social Security", "masked_sentences": ["The action brought by Mr Bocero Torrico against the INSS and the General Fund before the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Ourense (Labour Court No 2, Ourense, Spain) and that brought by Mr Bode against those bodies before the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 of A Coru\u00f1a (Labour Court No 2, A Coru\u00f1a, Spain) were dismissed. Those courts considered that the amount of the \u2018pension to be received\u2019, within the meaning of Article 208(1)(c) of the LGSS, which must be higher than the minimum pension which would be due to the person concerned when he or she reaches the age of 65 in order to be eligible for an early retirement pension, is the amount of the actual pension payable by the Kingdom of Spain. They relied on the purpose of the Spanish legislation, which is to avoid supplementing, up to the statutory minimum, retirement pensions for persons who have not yet reached the statutory retirement age, thus keeping them in the employment market."], "id": "3a9883cf-646f-4aaa-9425-c2217d77ee17", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the file available to the Court that the objectives it seeks to attain are different from those pursued by Directive 2015/849. It appears that the national legislation seeks to combat tax evasion and avoidance by requiring payments in an amount equal to or greater than BGN 10000 to be made not in cash, but by transfer or deposit into a payment account, so as to ensure that financial transactions are traceable. According to the Bulgarian Government, the ZOPB is thus intended to restrict the informal sector of the Bulgarian economy and prevent payments or revenue and expenditure being concealed with a view to avoiding payment of the tax provided for by the legislation in force as well as payment of mandatory contributions."], "id": "a1732648-f588-4448-9f50-6a52b2d1b622", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Judgment of 19 September 2013 (C\u2011140/12, EU:C:2013:565). See, in particular, paragraphs 44 and 47 of that judgment, where the Court established a link between the right to benefits under Regulation No 883/2004 and the legality of residence in the host Member State, which may be subject to satisfaction of the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38."], "id": "a9691e5d-d153-4770-803c-3734d2e7ff29", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 11(1)(d) of Directive 2003/109 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of determining entitlement to a benefit, the family members of a long-term resident, within the meaning of Article 2(b) thereof, who do not reside in the territory of that Member State, but in a third country are not taken into account, whereas the family members of a national of that Member State who reside in a third country are taken into account, where that Member State has not expressed its intention of relying on the derogation to equal treatment permitted by Article 11(2) of that directive by transposing it into national law."], "id": "8f2f1e3c-8a36-4133-8b79-7ce6413bc836", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It observes, in that regard, that the childbirth allowance, owing in particular to the significant changes which it has undergone in recent years, has novel aspects compared with family benefits already examined by the Court. In that regard, it observes that, although that allowance is linked to objective criteria defined by law and falls within the category of benefits, it nevertheless has a number of functions which might make its classification as a family benefit uncertain."], "id": "1b8d43d3-124a-43bd-833b-b17c23484fad", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to the email or \u2018electronic\u2019 address, see inter alia Article 88(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1); Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR) (OJ 2013 L 165, p. 1); Article 54(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65), and Article 45(2)(a) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35)."], "id": "09782b16-79f8-45be-8639-9d1eaf6b63d6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["That law may define the scope of the sickness benefits covered by the Member State and the conditions that need to be satisfied in order to claim those benefits. As I stated in point 53 of this Opinion, the Member States are competent to organise their systems and, accordingly, to define the extent of the benefits offered and the conditions governing entitlement to those benefits. It follows that a move by a Union citizen may, depending on the case, be more or less advantageous or disadvantageous for him, depending on the combination of national rules applicable pursuant to Regulation No 883/2004."], "id": "fb0cd6e8-052d-47d5-9eab-6c627bb71db9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, it appears, first, that the maternity allowance is automatically granted to mothers meeting certain legally defined, objective criteria, without any individual and discretionary assessment of the personal needs of the person concerned. In particular, the maternity allowance is granted or refused taking into account, in addition to the absence of maternity benefit in connection with employment, self-employment or professional practice, the resources of the household of which the mother is a member on the basis of an objective and legally defined criterion, namely the economic situation indicator, without the competent authority\u2019s being able to take account of other personal circumstances. Secondly, it relates to the branch of referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 883/2004."], "id": "aa8c8577-bf70-45e3-b720-7cf3467dfa73", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["For the purpose of the answer to Question 1(a), is it significant that, for a resident of a State of residence which, under Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 is not the competent State, there is no obligation to pay contributions under the schemes of that State of residence? For the periods during which that resident works in another Member State, he comes exclusively under the social security system of the State of employment under [Article 13], and in such a case Netherlands national legislation does not provide for an obligation to pay contributions either."], "id": "a2c3c04d-4279-421d-836e-7744220823e6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["31. In that regard, I must stress that EU law distinguishes between occupational pension schemes, which come under the concept of \u2018pay\u2019 in Article 157(1) and (2) TFEU, (17) and statutory benefit schemes, which do not. (18) It is settled case-law that such a contributory disability allowance does not come under the notion of \u2018pay\u2019 within the meaning of Article 157(1) and (2) TFEU or of Directive 2006/54. (19)"], "id": "045f3abb-5c98-465d-acf1-38d1c19b290b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 July 2020, the European Commission asks the Court to declare that, by adjusting the amount of family benefits, as well as social and tax advantages, for the children of persons entitled to such benefits in Austria to reflect the cost of living in the Member State in which the child resides, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Articles 4, 7 and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1), and, second, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1)."], "id": "0bcfaf09-1f22-4ddb-ada7-053f2c13c3a6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It should also be borne in mind that the Court has already held, in the case of a nurse running her own business as a sole trader and relying on the exemption provided for in Article 132(1)(g) of the VAT Directive, that a Member State may, in principle, require, without exceeding the discretion granted to it in that context, that the medical and pharmaceutical costs of such a taxable person be borne wholly or in part by the statutory and welfare bodies in at least two thirds of cases, in order to ensure that that service provider may be recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 November 2012, Zimmermann, C\u2011174/11, EU:C:2012:716, paragraphs 10 and 35 to 37)."], "id": "5ae93963-535e-45c3-b0ad-67ee8ab16bf5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["8. Article 5 of Regulation No 883/2004, entitled \u2018Equal treatment of benefits, income, facts or events\u2019, is worded as follows: \u2018Unless otherwise provided for by this Regulation and in the light of the special implementing provisions laid down, the following shall apply: (a) where, under the legislation of the competent Member State, the receipt of benefits and other income has certain legal effects, the relevant provisions of that legislation shall also apply to the receipt of equivalent benefits acquired under the legislation of another Member State or to income acquired in another Member State; (b) where, under the legislation of the competent Member State, legal effects are attributed to the occurrence of certain facts or events, that Member State shall take account of like facts or events occurring in any Member State as though they had taken place in its own territory.\u2019"], "id": "57cae737-53c3-4f85-8115-0d61b4113aef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As the applicant in the main proceedings worked in the Netherlands at the time she had her accident, she is covered by Netherlands and, since the accident, has received an allowance under the Wet arbeidsongeschiktheid (WAO) (Law on insurance against incapacity for work) (\u2018the WAO allowance\u2019) and an allowance on the basis of the Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfond (ABP) (pension fund for civil servants including old-age, survivors\u2019 and invalidity pensions) (\u2018the ABP allowance\u2019)."], "id": "faa10859-722e-4c74-927b-4d7d0eae6455", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Those certificates correspond to a standard form issued, in accordance, as the case may be, with Title III of Regulation No 574/72 or Title II of Regulation No 987/2009, by the institution designated by the competent authority of the Member State whose legislation is applicable, in order to \u2018attest\u2019, in accordance, inter alia, with Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Regulation No 574/72 and of Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, that workers finding themselves in one of the situations referred to in certain provisions of Title II of Regulations No 1408/71 and No 987/2009 are subject to the legislation of that Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 September 2015, X and van Dijk, C\u201172/14 and C-197/14, EU:C:2015:564, paragraph 38)."], "id": "7df1299d-0479-4ce7-9b7d-5c1a72a5cfb4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, all the provisions of the TFEU on freedom of movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Union nationals of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the EU, and preclude measures which might place Union nationals at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an activity in the territory of a Member State other than their Member State of origin. However, primary EU law cannot guarantee to a worker that moving to a Member State other than his Member State of origin will be neutral in terms of , since, given the disparities between the Member States\u2019 social security schemes and legislation, such a move may be more or less advantageous for the person concerned in that regard (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2017, Erzberger, C\u2011566/15, EU:C:2017:562, paragraphs 33 and 34 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "8991d031-4c5c-4831-9e80-f7666012c9be", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["By this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 2 de Vigo (Administrative Court No 2, Vigo, Spain) has put questions to the Court concerning, inter alia, the interpretation of Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC, in the context of a national provision under which the benefits granted by a statutory scheme for an entire category of workers excludes unemployment benefits. In the present case, it is the activity of domestic workers, a group overwhelmingly consisting of women, which is central to the referring court\u2019s questions."], "id": "0edd2d1e-36b9-4c9f-be2c-b902acc3e469", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It should be further noted that, as identified in the Commission\u2019s recent evaluation of the EU legal migration directives, there are different rules and specific restrictions on equal treatment contained in each directive which largely reflect differentiation between the categories of third-country nationals covered and their lengths of stay, along with the legislative history of the directive concerned. Thus, it seems to me that while the overall treatment granted to long-term residents may generally be regarded as privileged as compared to single permit holders, as illustrated by the fact that there is no specific derogation for family benefits and equal treatment extends to , social assistance and social protection as defined by national law under Article 11 of Directive 2003/109, the specific application of equal treatment regarding social security for long-term residents as compared to single permit holders depends on the particular situation."], "id": "82eb7a0f-8cbf-4efd-b45d-255b63f476bf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It was not possible to dispel those doubts during the formal investigation procedure. After a thorough examination of the market situation for fisheries products during the first quarter of 2000, the Commission concluded, in recital 98 of the contested decision, that, on the basis of the information at its disposal, \u2018the nationwide reduction of contributions granted to fishermen for the period 15 April to 15 October [could not] be considered compatible with the common market under Article 87(2)(b) [EC]\u2019. In recital 99 of that decision, it held that \u2018as operating aid granted to all fishing businesses without any obligation on the part of the recipients, this aid [was] incompatible with the common market by virtue of the third indent of the fourth paragraph of section 1.2 of the 1997 Guidelines\u2019."], "id": "890a5b60-d7c9-4d8f-bc0e-4fe2ff184d41", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of systems in conjunction with Article 10(1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse to grant the authorisation referred to in Article 20(1) of that regulation where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in the person\u2019s Member State of affiliation, even though the method of treatment used is contrary to that person\u2019s religious beliefs, where the refusal is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. In the absence of organisational or structural requirements relating to the orderly and balanced provision of effective healthcare by the Member State of affiliation, that Member State may refuse pursuant to the second condition provided by Article 20(2) of Regulation No 883/2004 to take religious beliefs into account, if it would potentially result in an appreciable increase in costs for the Member State of affiliation to the detriment of the provision of effective healthcare to others. This is a matter of fact which must be assessed by the referring court."], "id": "f0232f46-bd06-4778-ad0e-1a2d02bf3632", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, as seen in point 11 of this Opinion, Article 9(12) of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 is limited to making access to social assistance and benefits for a long-term resident conditional on his actual residence in the national territory and \u2018unless otherwise provided\u2019. That provision does not refer to the place of residence of that resident\u2019s family members, and the wording \u2018unless otherwise provided\u2019 cannot, in my view, be regarded as a clear expression of a Member State\u2019s intention to derogate, given that that wording does not specify the provisions being derogated from. In those circumstances, it should be considered that Italy cannot rely on Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/109 in the circumstances of the present case."], "id": "c8993f16-dc41-40dd-8886-a78f564fd10f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of systems must be interpreted as meaning that an additional benefit paid to certain high-level sportspersons who have represented a Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions is not covered by the \u2018old-age benefit\u2019 referred to in that provision and, consequently, falls outside the scope of that regulation."], "id": "2f2763e8-c6e8-4e51-a2d5-fe4aea5eb9f4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that the legislation applicable to a situation such as that in the main proceedings is that of the State of the transport undertaking which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is de facto fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises effective control over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs, that is to say the Netherlands in the present case."], "id": "ef281d54-7a9d-45fd-a7e6-44065c761b12", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it bears emphasis that the request for a preliminary ruling has been made by an employment and court hearing an appeal against the CPAS decisions withdrawing social assistance from the applicant in the main proceedings with effect from 11 April 2017, the date on which his daughter came of age. There is nothing in the file submitted to the Court to suggest that the regularisation of the residence of LM and his daughter took effect prior to 17 May 2019, when residence permits were issued to them, or that there was, at the same time, a retroactive recognition of LM\u2019s entitlement to social security benefits as from 11 April 2017, with a corresponding payment of the arrears accrued in the intervening period."], "id": "f8f2ae84-fe45-42a7-bb55-cc06847f8033", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["72. Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the questions referred by the Juzgado de lo Social n\u00ba 26 de Barcelona (Social Court No 26, Barcelona, Spain) as follows: Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of must be interpreted as precluding a national rule that, in effect, puts a significantly greater proportion of women than men at a disadvantage by allowing the award of two or more incapacity benefits obtained under different social security schemes due to two or more incapacities, whilst prohibiting the receipt of two or more such benefits under a single scheme, even where the eligibility requirements for all those benefits are satisfied, which is for the referring court to ascertain."], "id": "320d503e-aa02-42c9-be95-60d6087a91ed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision which excludes unemployment benefits from the benefits granted to domestic workers by a statutory social security scheme where it is found that those workers are almost exclusively women."], "id": "bc03b26c-7704-4314-9930-f6b2659dd158", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court is of the view that it is impossible, on the basis of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Franzen and Others (C\u2011382/13, EU:C:2015:261), to determine, without having a reasonable doubt, whether in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, EU law not only allows, but actually requires the disapplication of a national law providing for the exclusion of a resident of the Netherlands from the social insurance scheme of that Member State if that person works in another Member State and is subject to the legislation of that other Member State on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71."], "id": "47159ebd-aca9-4a58-bb30-7f8bca7a63a8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted, first, that Article 2(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 provides that that regulation is to apply, inter alia, to \u2018nationals of a Member State \u2026 who are or have been subject to the legislation of one or more Member States\u2019 and, secondly, that Article 1(c) of that regulation provides that \u2018\u201cinsured person\u201d, in relation to the branches covered by Title III, [ ] Chapters 1 and 3, means any person satisfying the conditions required under the legislation of the Member State competent under Title II to have the right to benefits, taking into account the provisions of th[at] Regulation\u2019."], "id": "bdd06e3d-2919-4dfa-9fcc-de397f2dd7d1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["According to the settled case-law of the Court, the distinction between benefits coming within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and those which fall outside that scope is based essentially on the constituent elements of each benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for its grant, and not on whether it is classified as a benefit by national legislation (judgments of 21 June 2017, Martinez Silva, C\u2011449/16, EU:C:2017:485, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited, and of 2 April 2020, Caisse pour l\u2019avenir des enfants (Child of the spouse of a frontier worker), C\u2011802/18, EU:C:2020:269, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "5d30eba8-9687-485e-bd38-35a4e7d9c1ce", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the effects of the infringement of the limitation period as far as concerns the first two parts referred to in paragraph 97 above on the lawfulness of the dismissal decision, it should be observed that each of the three parts of the case concerned failures of a pecuniary nature consisting, at the very least, in a prolonged lack of care on the part of the applicant as regards the minimum requirements for establishing sufficient documentary evidence of the provision of services and of transactions the cost of which was borne, in whole or in part, by the schemes put into place by the ECB for the benefit of its staff. It should also be noted that the ECB, inter alia, considered that those failures came within its powers in financial matters and the ECB inferred therefrom that the applicant had not only breached his duty of loyalty, but also that he had not respected their common values and that he had thus risked the reputation of the Bank."], "id": "f4e3262e-55fa-48e2-aede-c653080f9fea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["I would observe, by way of preliminary point, that, according to the decision to refer, at the time when A left his Member State of origin for an unlimited period, he was no longer working there and was no longer covered by its system. Although he sought employment in the host Member State, he did not enter that State mainly for that purpose, but did so in order to join his wife and children. It was therefore not as a worker that he relied on his right to reside in the host Member State. Furthermore, although he may also have come within Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2004/38, on Union citizens who remain in the host Member State for more than three months after entering that State in order to seek employment, it is apparent from that decision to refer that it was as an economically inactive person that A was residing in the host Member State at the time of his application to be affiliated to social security and that his right of residence was based on Article 7(1)(b) and Article 14(2) of that directive."], "id": "972d63b1-7fbc-410d-b8c3-b7103970c969", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["54 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, Clause 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for an entitlement for magistrates to 30 days\u2019 paid annual leave or to a and pension scheme deriving from the employment relationship, such as that provided for ordinary judges, if that magistrate comes within the definition of \u2018part-time worker\u2019 within the meaning of the framework agreement on part-time work and/or \u2018fixed-term worker\u2019 within the meaning of the framework agreement on fixed-term work and is in a comparable situation to that of an ordinary judge. The third question"], "id": "8fa7373e-8a9d-4d83-9e47-38973cf0151d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["73. Third, the same court observes that, although the national legislature made an important intervention relating to the adjustment of civil servants\u2019 pensions for the year 2018, it refrained from adopting such a measure with a \u2018social component\u2019 in respect of civil servants in active employment, in respect of whom a reducing scale was not applied when pay was adjusted for the year 2018. Nevertheless, it appears to me that, in order to determine whether the means chosen to serve a legitimate social-policy aim are implemented consistently and systematically, reference must be made to the category of persons concerned, that is to say retired civil servants. In that regard, it is for the referring court to examine whether, as the Austrian Government claims, the legislation at issue applies in the same way to all recipients of a State pension. If it does not, that legislation appears to be inconsistent in that connection. If it does, the difference between civil servants\u2019 retirement pensions and the salaries of civil servants in active employment does not, in my opinion, fall within the scope of Article 5 of Directive 2006/54, which seeks merely to prohibit all direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in occupational schemes."], "id": "a6f34081-a423-4689-9a30-8ceffe5bb8d2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["See, to that effect, judgment of 10 June 2010, CopyGene (C\u2011262/08, EU:C:2010:328, paragraph 71): \u2018[the fact the national authorities are entitled to take into consideration that an establishment\u2019s activities received no support from and are not covered by the public scheme does] not mean that the exemption \u2026 must be systematically excluded when the services supplied are not reimbursed by the social security authorities.\u2019"], "id": "0f2b9df4-fbe4-47f3-8dd0-e126362e541a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social security", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Migrant workers \u2014 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 \u2014 Unemployment benefits \u2014 Calculation \u2014 Failure to take account of the final salary received in the Member State of residence \u2014 Reference period not of sufficient duration \u2014 Salary received following the employment relationship coming to an end \u2014 Person having previously been active as an employed person in Switzerland)"], "id": "3c6103a0-0ad9-41ad-8b14-1691510bfd27", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["15 Article 129 of the DOPK states: \u2018(1) Set off or reimbursement may be effected on the initiative of the tax authorities or on the written request of the person concerned. A request for set off or reimbursement shall be considered if it is submitted within five years of 1 January of the year in which the event giving rise to the reimbursement occurred, unless the law provides otherwise. \u2026 (3) (supplemented in DV No 108 of 2007) Notice of set off or reimbursement must be issued within 30 days of receipt of the request, if no review is ordered before expiry of that period. Liabilities comprised of tax or compulsory contributions are open to review even in cases of set off or reimbursement, including cases where a notice under the first sentence is the subject of an action or appeal. If the notice is the subject of an action before the courts, a notice of adjustment may be issued at any time until the judicial decision takes effect. \u2026 (7) An appeal shall lie in respect of a notice of set off or reimbursement in accordance with the rules governing appeals against notices of adjustment.\u2019"], "id": "d78e5b1f-f840-48d2-9ba6-5a2f81a4225a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court also states that, in its case-law, the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) has already had occasion to highlight the dual nature of the family unit allowance. On one hand, as it is linked to the income of all types of family unit and intended to guarantee a sufficient income to low-income families, it is a benefit. In accordance with the general rules of the social security scheme which includes that allowance, the protection of the families of workers is implemented by the payment of a supplement to remuneration for work performed. Financed by contributions paid by all employers, together with a supplement paid by the State, the family unit allowance is paid by the employer who makes the advance payment and is authorised to offset that amount against the social security contributions due. On the other hand, that allowance is a social assistance measure, as the income taken into account is increased, where necessary, to protect persons suffering from physical or mental infirmity or disability or minors with persistent difficulties in performing their duties and functions appropriate to their age. In any event, according to the referring court, it is a measure which falls within the scope of Article 11(1)(d) of Directive 2003/109."], "id": "4b53a53b-3258-4051-9950-631b8a96ffec", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, this interpretation is supported by the fact that, as mentioned in point 46 of this Opinion, Article 12(2)(b) of Directive 2011/98 does not refer to the residence of the family members of third-country workers among the derogations which Member States may establish on the right to equal treatment with regard to and in particular family benefits. Moreover, Article 12(2)(c) of that directive, which provides for a derogation to equal treatment with regard to tax benefits, refers to the residence of the family members of the third-country worker in the host Member State. It would therefore be illogical if family members residing abroad were considered to be excluded from the equal treatment provisions under Article 12 of Directive 2011/98."], "id": "a6a92e65-690c-4e02-975b-831677888a93", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["It should be noted that it is not inconceivable that the reductions in question concerned, at least in part, sums which had already been deducted by the undertakings from their employees\u2019 salaries at the full rate and which had yet to be paid to the competent authorities (I would point out that the circulars which provided for those measures were dated 15 April and 13 July 2000 and concerned the period from 15 April to 15 October 2000). In that case, the measure would have covered \u2013 at least in formal terms \u2013 the debt owed by the undertakings to institutions and not the employees\u2019 contributions themselves. However, even if an obligation on the part of the employer to pass on the reduction to employees\u2019 salaries retroactively could be excluded from such an arrangement, neither the French Republic nor the Commission claimed that the measures in question were of such a nature. In any event, that is not apparent from the contested decision."], "id": "849b86c3-af46-400c-b054-5892feb1ccf6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["7. Recitals 1 and 6 of Directive 2014/24 state: \u2018(1) The award of public contracts by or on behalf of Member States\u2019 authorities has to comply with the principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. However, for public contracts above a certain value, provisions should be drawn up coordinating national procurement procedures so as to ensure that those principles are given practical effect and public procurement is opened up to competition. \u2026 (6) It is also appropriate to recall that this Directive should not affect the legislation of the Member States. Nor should it deal with the liberalisation of services of general economic interest, reserved to public or private entities, or with the privatisation of public entities providing services. It should equally be recalled that Member States are free to organise the provision of compulsory social services or of other services such as postal services either as services of general economic interest or as non-economic services of general interest or as a mixture thereof. It is appropriate to clarify that non-economic services of general interest should not fall within the scope of this Directive.\u2019"], "id": "7fb40b86-da6b-455b-9ed1-e2e417a84e53", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, the central place of the principle of aggregation in the calculation of benefits is reflected in Article 48(a) TFEU (point 5 above). Indeed the Court has noted that \u2018Article 48 TFEU \u2026 provides that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to adopt \u201csuch measures in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom of movement for workers\u201d inter alia by making arrangements to secure for migrant workers the \u201caggregation \u2026 of all periods taken into account under the laws of the several countries\u201d. Such an aggregation system of periods was introduced by Regulation No 1408/71 then by Regulation No 883/2004\u2019. The importance of aggregation is also reflected in recital 14 of Regulation No 883/2004 (point 6 above), which refers specifically to the importance of aggregation to \u2018calculating the amount of benefits\u2019. To this can be added recital 2 of Decision No H6. As noted above in point 10, aggregation is stated therein to be relevant to \u2018increasing the benefit\u2019."], "id": "ff3a7d42-d82b-457c-b825-e6112b78f0c7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The combined provisions of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of systems and Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, relating to scheduled treatment, read in the light of Article 56 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that:"], "id": "0d7bee2f-639d-4af5-b0d8-e50c9b10b5fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["\u201coccupational schemes\u201d: schemes not governed by [Directive 79/7] whose purpose is to provide workers, whether employees or self-employed, in an undertaking or group of undertakings, area of economic activity, occupational sector or group of sectors with benefits intended to supplement the benefits provided by statutory social security schemes or to replace them, whether membership of such schemes is compulsory or optional.\u2019"], "id": "c5b18f80-d614-41af-ab99-6e6b377409cf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns in essence the interpretation of Article 60(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of systems. The Court is also invited to indicate which \u2018income\u2019 has to be taken into account when calculating the amount of the family benefit sought."], "id": "651c027d-507f-47b5-9e50-f9e5e7bd1120", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court states that Article 60(1) of the LGSS entitles women who have had at least two biological or adopted children to receive the pension supplement at issue, on account of their demographic contribution to , whereas men in an identical situation do not have that entitlement. That court expresses doubts about whether such a provision is compatible with EU law."], "id": "270cb597-95fe-4a8b-bc1e-2b5462139860", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The appellant in the main proceedings, CG, is a Netherlands and Croatian national, a single mother of two very young children, who has declared that she arrived in Northern Ireland in 2018. She has never carried out an economic activity in the United Kingdom and lived with her partner, a Union citizen, of Netherlands nationality and the father of her children, until she moved to a women\u2019s refuge following allegations of domestic violence. CG has no resources and has no access to any benefits at all to provide for her and her two children\u2019s needs."], "id": "02db75fa-f3e1-49c0-a216-5bb98d66e285", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Article 23(1)(e) of that regulation, which reproduces and amends the provision formerly set out in Article 13(1)(e) of that directive, states that Union or Member State law may restrict by way of a legislative measure the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in, inter alia, Articles 13 to 15 thereof when such a restriction respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard certain important objectives of general public interest, in particular an important economic or financial interest of the Union or of a Member State, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters, public health and ."], "id": "2b63792f-4b01-49d4-a1ad-ae5bccb60ea1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Should Directive 2006/54, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 157 TFEU, the general EU law principles of equal treatment and of the prohibition of discrimination, and Articles 20, 21(1) and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Article 46 [CCN], which grant female employees of organisations raising children themselves three months leave with half pay, one and a half months leave with full pay or unpaid leave of up to a year after maternity leave, are excluded from the scope of application of that directive?\u2019"], "id": "4a73b911-b4ac-42d3-af43-6aeeaa3a1c1b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the information provided by the referring court following the Court\u2019s request for clarification, by its first question, the referring court must be regarded as asking whether Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 is to be interpreted as meaning that a person who, on the date of application of that regulation, was engaged in paid employment in one Member State and self-employed in another Member State, and therefore subject at the same time to the legislation applicable in those two Member States, in accordance with Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, must, in order to be subject to the legislation applicable pursuant to Regulation No 883/2004, submit an express request to that effect."], "id": "e134c3a8-2d23-40b8-814a-9d16b55ec993", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, it is apparent from Articles 1(c) and 5(c) of Directive 2006/54 that the directive relates to occupational schemes. The Court has previously held that schemes of pensions paid to a worker by reason of his/her employment relationship with the public employer also fall within the material scope of Article 5 of Directive 2006/54 (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 November 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the ordinary courts), C\u2011192/18, EU:C:2019:924, paragraphs 72 and 73)."], "id": "18e7c159-c92f-4077-a6cf-2f5a73251625", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["2. If the treatment is recognised and covered by , the NEAK shall examine, within an additional deadline of 15 days, whether the patient can receive treatment within a time limit that is medically justifiable, as set out in the application, by a publicly funded healthcare provider. If need be, the NEAK shall consult an expert in order to verify the information provided in the application."], "id": "758ff95b-4c49-4888-ab42-c0d2830e1661", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["I thus consider that to systematically deny a person such as A the possibility of being affiliated to the of the host Member State on the ground that, at the time of requesting affiliation, he does not have worker status, is not supported by the wording of Directive 2004/38 nor by that of Regulation No 883/2004 and does not meet the objective of freedom of movement guaranteed by those two instruments of secondary law or that of the authors of the Treaties, set out, in particular, in Article 21 TFEU."], "id": "81c3b92a-feab-4a5e-9a17-caa6963c94fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the subjective element, I note that the Court has held that, in order to establish the existence of the second element, which relates to the intention of operators, account may be taken, in particular, of the purely artificial nature of the transactions concerned. The subjective element seems to me to be apparent, in this case, from the clear intention of AFMB and its contractual partners to circumvent Netherlands legislation for the purpose of optimising their economic activities. As stated above, most of the drivers in question were employees settled in the Netherlands before being employed by AFMB. The formal engagement by AFMB appears to have had the aim of excluding them from the application of Netherlands legislation, which would normally have been applicable, on the basis of Article 13(1)(b)(i) of the Regulation No 883/2004."], "id": "e8161c54-e554-4bea-8a61-6c2c63e54383", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The evidence submitted to the Court also shows that, in the present case, the subcontracting in question involves the use of social cooperatives which, under the Italian legislation on such cooperatives, benefit from preferential rules in terms of taxation, contributions, remuneration and and that that legislation specifically aims to facilitate the integration into the labour market of certain disadvantaged persons by making it possible to pay them lower wages than prescribed for other persons doing similar work. It is, however, for the referring court to carry out the necessary checks in that regard."], "id": "fd7c0ed5-d999-4b7d-b786-d6f8b4ccd928", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["The applicants in the previous proceedings claim before the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) that the provision at issue is unconstitutional and furthermore contrary to Article 12 of Directive 2011/98. The INPS, as the defendant in the previous proceedings, contends that the questions as to constitutionality should be dismissed, submitting that the childbirth allowance is a premium payment which falls outside the field of and that it is not intended to meet primary and urgent personal needs. It adds that that directive confers on Member States discretion to exclude from the benefits at issue third-country nationals who do not have long-term resident status, having regard to the limits on the financial resources available. The Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (President of the Council of Ministers, Italy), acting as intervener in the previous proceedings, contends that the questions as to constitutionality should be dismissed as inadmissible or, in the alternative, manifestly unfounded. He submits that the childbirth allowance is not intended to meet people\u2019s basic needs and that, under EU law too, only long-term resident status allows the full assimilation of third-country nationals with Union citizens as regards social benefits."], "id": "47253196-07aa-4ad4-b046-c078751c2027", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with Article 91 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended, read in combination with Article 97 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1), Regulation No 883/2004 was applicable from 1 May 2010. Under Article 90 of Regulation No 883/2004, all provisions 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), pertinent to the main proceedings were repealed and replaced. The equivalent of Article 6 of Regulation No 883/2004 is Article 45(1) of Regulation No 1408/71. The equivalent of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 is Article 46(2) of Regulation No 1408/71."], "id": "bf5fc18d-3beb-4446-b589-c7b579959ef9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social security", "masked_sentences": ["Is the concept of \u201cthe supply of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and work\u201d contained in Article 132(1)(g) of [the VAT Directive] to be interpreted as including or excluding services performed in the context of a scheme for the protection of adults established by law and subject to the control of an independent judicial authority?"], "id": "53f7e68a-286e-4548-b595-aecf49c88542", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Clearly, such a finding implies that under the law as it currently stands the scope ratione materiae is very large, raising the question whether the Court should consider introducing a limitation such as it has done in Keck and Mithouard in 1993 regarding the . The line of argumentation for such a limitation would be the following: as in Keck and Mithouard, we are here in the presence of an indistinctly applicable measure, in law and in fact, to the freedom to provide services and the corresponding freedom to receive such services. There is therefore no discriminatory element involved: from the perspective of the service provider, any foreign firm wishing to establish itself in D\u011b\u010d\u00edn with a view to offering gambling activities finds itself in exactly the same situation as BONVER WIN and could not carry out its activity in the specified part of town. Conversely, as regards the service recipient, no recipient \u2014 be he or she a Czech or foreign recipient \u2014 can receive gambling services in the specified part of the town. On the assumption that the concept of a \u2018certain selling arrangement\u2019, as developed in Keck and Mithouard, is in reality to mean the market access of a firm intending to sell goods or, in the present case, to offer its services, why not exclude from the scope of Article 56 TFEU those measures indistinctly applicable in law and in fact which do not impede the market access of service providers from other Member States?"], "id": "3c562d31-eb73-4eba-9a06-2ec8c2634c07", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Since the CBD oil contained in Kanavape was, in the present case, imported from the Czech Republic, where the hemp plant was cultivated and where the CBD was extracted, the national court making the reference, the Cour d\u2019appel d\u2019Aix-en-Provence (Court of Appeal, Aix-en-Provence, France), questions whether the French legislation complies with the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to the and with secondary legislation adopted within the framework of the common agricultural policy, specifically Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013."], "id": "597e098b-76c2-46c1-a9e4-f3a17d72e53b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The award of public contracts by or on behalf of Member States\u2019 authorities has to comply with the principles of the [FEU] Treaty, and in particular the , freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. However, for public contracts above a certain value, provisions should be drawn up coordinating national procurement procedures so as to ensure that those principles are given practical effect and public procurement is opened up to competition."], "id": "953cb047-d2d3-484a-8c79-4d655e42d294", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Unrestricted access to vehicle repair information, via a standardised format which can be used to retrieve the technical information, and effective competition on the market for vehicle repair and maintenance information services are necessary to improve the functioning of the internal market, particularly as regards the , freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. A great proportion of such information is related to on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems and their interaction with other vehicle systems. It is appropriate to lay down technical specifications that manufacturers\u2019 websites should follow, along with targeted measures to ensure reasonable access for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Common standards agreed with the involvement of stakeholders, such as the [Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS)] format, can facilitate the exchange of information between manufacturers and service providers. It is therefore appropriate to initially require the use of the technical specifications of the OASIS format and to ask the Commission to request CEN/ISO (European Committee for Standardisation/International Organisation for Standardisation) to further develop this format into a standard with a view to replacing the OASIS format in due course.\u2019"], "id": "5d930b11-c17c-404f-863b-eb552b291d3f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In this case, it is accordingly necessary to examine whether there is a particular connecting factor linking the specific situation that gives rise to the alleged discrimination and the provisions of the FEU treaty on the various freedoms of movement, particularly those relating to the free movement of persons, the or the freedom to provide services."], "id": "ef6d2c48-923f-4118-832b-e0ea9f1d6c81", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["On the other hand, the Court limits the reach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU with a test of remoteness. It is settled case-law that those articles do not cover a measure that applies without distinction and whose purpose is not to regulate trade in goods with other Member States, and the restrictive effects of which on the are too uncertain and indirect for the obligation which it lays down to be regarded as being of a nature to hinder trade between Member States."], "id": "b2bc8caa-ff82-4b74-af8f-e032bd9c5502", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In so far as national measures imposing an obligation to provide information on the origin or provenance of goods apply without distinction to all goods, they do not constitute direct discrimination but measures which may have an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction. See, to that effect, judgment of 25 April 1985, Commission v United Kingdom (207/83, EU:C:1985:161, paragraph 17). In the present case, the contested decree does not apply to products processed outside the Union. However, the Court has ruled that \u2018the application of \u2026 national measure[s], may also have effects on the \u2026 even if restricted to domestic producers\u2019, since it encourages the purchase by domestic processors of locally produced goods, in this case, milk. See, to that effect, judgment of 7 May 1997, Pistre and Others (C\u2011321/94 to C\u2011324/94, EU:C:1997:229, paragraph 45)."], "id": "1098e24d-bb4b-436c-8197-6060fa9b40a7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Cross-border healthcare \u2013 Directive 2011/24/EU \u2013 Articles 3(k) and 11(1) \u2013 Prescription \u2013 Definition \u2013 Recognition of a prescription issued in another Member State by an authorised person \u2013 Conditions \u2013 \u2013 Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports \u2013 Articles 35 and 36 TFEU \u2013 Restriction on the dispensing by a pharmacy of prescription-only medicinal products \u2013 Order form issued in another Member State \u2013 Justification \u2013 Protection of human health and human life \u2013 Directive 2001/83/EC \u2013 Second paragraph of Article 81 \u2013 Supply of medicinal products to the public of a Member State)"], "id": "c1f0df41-0d07-412b-aa67-78183137f467", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that, although the Commission does not allege infringement of a specific provision of Regulation No 1308/2013, but infringement of that regulation as a whole, the fact remains that, in the absence of a pricing mechanism, the free formation of selling prices on the basis of fair competition is a component of that regulation and constitutes the expression of the principle of in conditions of effective competition (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 November 2019, Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo nari\u0173 grup\u0117, C\u20112/18, EU:C:2019:962, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "37b03b4f-db1d-4bdd-9993-570da2769a65", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The internal market is itself defined by Article 26(2) TFEU as an area \u2018without internal frontiers in which the , person, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provision of the Treaties\u2019. While it is true that, as the General Court observed in Castelnou Energ\u00eda v Commission, environmental policies must be integrated into definition and implementation of EU policies, the fact remains that, as that Court also observed in that case, \u2018protection of the environment does not constitute, per se, one of the components of that internal market\u2019."], "id": "93b5c2ce-f560-4966-886f-00a7db5dcb6f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["As regards, however, the question whether such State aid meets the second condition laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, also noted in paragraph 19 of the present judgment, under which that aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, this condition, as the General Court correctly held, entails weighing up the positive effects of the planned aid for the development of the activities that that aid is intended to support and the negative effects that the aid may have on the internal market. Article 26(2) TFEU states that that market \u2018shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the , persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties\u2019. Therefore, examination of the second condition laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU entails the Commission taking into account the negative effects of the State aid on competition and trade between Member States, but does not require any negative effects other than those to be taken into account."], "id": "55c4508d-bcc9-41cd-ae8f-f2aadb0b1283", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["I conclude from this that Articles 34 and 36 TFEU preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the importation of CBD oil where it is extracted from the whole hemp plant, since, in the current state of scientific knowledge, it has not been established that CBD oil has psychotropic effects. It is, however, for the national court to satisfy itself that no risk associated with, inter alia, non-psychotropic effects of CBD has been identified or been the subject of a comprehensive scientific assessment, and if it were to find that such a risk existed and that there were such an assessment, to satisfy itself that an alternative measure, less restrictive on the , could be adopted, such as the establishment of a maximum CBD content."], "id": "b49c60ed-f646-4d42-acaf-55b45fa88303", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Last, as regards the , laid down in Article 34 TFEU, it is not disputed that the cross-border movement of the breast implants at issue in the main proceedings was not affected by any discriminatory obstacle. On the contrary, those products, which were manufactured in France, were subsequently marketed in the Netherlands by a Dutch company which thereafter sold them in Germany."], "id": "37923246-0adb-4215-8c6e-ecea248dab71", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Irgita, paragraph 48: \u2018The freedom of the Member States as to the choice of the management method that they judge to be most appropriate for the performance of works or the provision of services cannot however be unlimited. That freedom must, on the contrary, be exercised with due regard to the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular the , the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency\u2019."], "id": "b943bec0-8113-4330-8c0b-30bd46bbf456", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In any event, it should be recalled that, where a national measure affects both the freedom to provide services and the , the Court will, in principle, examine it in relation to just one of those two fundamental freedoms if it is clear that, in the circumstances of the case, one of those freedoms is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be attached to it (judgment of 14 October 2004, Omega, C\u201136/02, EU:C:2004:614, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "321540aa-3c48-4321-a347-134c76ac2aaa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["7. Recital 15 reads: \u2018The award of contracts concluded in the Member States by contracting entities as referred to in Directive 2004/17/EC \u2026 and by contracting authorities as referred to in Directive 2004/18/EC \u2026 is subject to compliance with the principles of the Treaty and in particular the , the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and with the principles deriving therefrom, such as the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. \u2026\u2019"], "id": "a740c908-77bd-45eb-b0dd-413a5e3e7f71", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["27 Among the specific provisions of the Treaty which the Member States are required to comply with when exercising the entitlement conferred on them by Article 2(2) of Directive 97/23, it is necessary, in the light of the objective pursued by that directive, namely to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of pressure equipment within the internal market, to refer to Articles 34 and 36 TFEU which govern the and prohibit, between Member States, quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect."], "id": "116d4703-5669-48c6-bc01-2602d5b05d56", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The barriers to trade outlined by the Commission are not the result of the contested measure, but rather the consequence of the commercial practice which that measure seeks to address. Paragraph 3(2)(u) of Law XCV of 2009 expressly prohibits discrimination based on the country of origin in the context of price fixing. If a supplier manufactures products efficiently, innovatively and at low cost and therefore sells its products to a retailer at a low supplier price, the price at which those products will be offered to the consumer will also be lower than that of other suppliers\u2019 products which are manufactured less efficiently and are therefore sold at a higher price. Homogeneous basic foodstuffs therefore compete on the consumer market on the basis of their cost-effectiveness, irrespective of their Member State of origin. The case-law of the Court does not support the conclusion that legislation of a Member State which makes no distinction on the basis of the origin of the goods, which is not intended to regulate trade in goods with other Member States and whose restrictive effects on the are too uncertain and too indirect, is incompatible with Union law."], "id": "c635db7f-9441-48be-bbae-8e39c84c4f8a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["19. I shall start the analysis by considering the degree of harmonisation achieved by the BPR, given that this is the instrument of EU law that the referring court specifically inquires about. On a subsidiary basis, that court also inquires more generally about the conditions under which EU law allows for the adoption of national rules such as those at issue. In so far as it is necessary to do so, I will thus assess the rules at issue in the light of the relevant EU law which, in the present case, are the provisions on the under Articles 34 and 36 TFEU. (8) Those provisions, however, become applicable only if the case in the main proceedings involves a cross-border element, (9) which it is for the referring court to ascertain. (10)"], "id": "ef409df9-812a-4437-8273-8eb81f2fc39b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it should be noted that paragraphs 61 to 67 of the application contain a summary of the legal arguments by which the applicant challenges by his fourth plea, alleging infringement of the EU rules on the use of languages, the lawfulness of the notice of competition in the light of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 L 17, p. 385), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 adapting certain regulations and decisions in the fields of , freedom of movement for persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, transport policy, energy, taxation, statistics, trans-European networks, judiciary and fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security, environment, customs union, external relations, foreign, security and defence policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1) (\u2018Regulation No 1\u2019), and of the principle of equal treatment. That summary is sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Parliament to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power of review. The fourth plea must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "eb62cfb1-c7b0-4fc1-ace6-37bf9c768235", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Where a national measure relates to both the and the freedom to provide services, the Court will in principle examine that measure in relation to only one of those two fundamental freedoms if it is apparent that one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it (judgments of 22 January 2002, Canal Sat\u00e9lite Digital, C\u2011390/99, EU:C:2002:34, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited, and of 4 October 2011, Football Association Premier League and Others, C\u2011403/08 and C\u2011429/08, EU:C:2011:631, paragraph 78)."], "id": "f40aa663-6aa4-4a04-9860-629398ace898", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Far less is known about situations in which a private party requires another private party to have its residence at a specified location. In terms of EU law, obscurity prevails. Is it lawful that, in many instances, it is virtually impossible for a customer who does not reside in the same Member State as that in which the bank is established to obtain a mortgage from that bank? Can an insurer refuse to provide coverage for a potential customer located in another Member State? To a layman, at the very least, such situations are difficult to reconcile with the objective of an internal market. While for some such practices are incompatible with the rationale of an internal market \u2018in which the , persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties\u2019, others would point to a supposedly fundamental difference between the activity of public and private entities and the fact that in terms of underlying logic, at least initially, public activity was to be governed by the fundamental freedoms and private activity by the provisions of competition law. The rest was left to \u2018the market\u2019 itself."], "id": "9f177c43-3471-4d5e-85df-021691451f3d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The means that an operator who has bought a medicinal product lawfully marketed in one Member State under a marketing authorisation issued in that State can import that medicinal product into another Member State where it already has a marketing authorisation, without having to obtain such an authorisation in accordance with Directive 2001/83 and without having to provide all the information and documentation required by the directive for the purpose of determining whether the medicinal product is effective and safe (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 September 2002, Ferring, C\u2011172/00, EU:C:2002:474, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "a1b5b1dc-ad0c-4a4d-b8ef-e6fb4c461285", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Legislation which is capable of restricting a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, such as the , can, however, be properly justified only if it is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (judgments of 11 September 2008, Commission v Germany, C\u2011141/07, EU:C:2008:492, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited, and of 19 October 2016, Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung, C\u2011148/15, EU:C:2016:776, paragraph 34)."], "id": "34547569-92b4-4bd3-a7cc-713a1e7828f0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The is a fundamental principle of the FEU Treaty which is expressed in the prohibition, set out in Article 34 TFEU, of quantitative restrictions on imports between Member States and all measures having equivalent effect. In accordance with settled case-law, the prohibition of measures having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction, laid down in Article 34 TFEU, applies to all legislation of the Member States that is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States. This prohibition was first articulated by the Court in its judgment of 11 July 1974, Dassonville (8/74, EU:C:1974:82) (\u2018the Dassonville judgment\u2019)."], "id": "8e07233b-8b3e-4cf3-8178-25e5f6d465a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["However, a national measure which restricts the may be justified, inter alia, on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans, within the meaning of Article 36 TFEU. In that regard, I note that, although it is for the Member States to decide the level of protection they wish to afford to the health and life of humans, the fact remains that legislation that is capable of restricting a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, such as the free movement of goods, can be justified on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, within the meaning of Article 36 TFEU, only if that measure is appropriate for securing the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it."], "id": "d3bd276c-87c1-439e-ae2b-68afd6f9c72b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In paragraphs 16 and 17 of that judgment the Court stated that the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements does not hinder trade between Member States so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. In such circumstances, the rules on the sale of products from another Member State are deemed not prevent their access to the market and thus fall outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU. The rule of reason approach developed in the field of is not however \u2018set in stone\u2019 and some rare exceptions exist in the case-law which temper that approach. See, for example, judgment of 26 June 1997, Familiapress (C\u2011368/95, EU:C:1997:325). In that case, the Court found that even though the relevant national legislation was directed against a method of sales promotion (and thus a selling arrangement), it nevertheless affected the actual content of the products. The Court, however, has not adopted a similar rule of reason approach in the field of freedom to provide services in accordance with which a particular type or category of national measure is deemed, in principle, not to impede access to the market. A case-by-case, rather than a more formalistic approach, which identifies or singles out particular categories of measures has, thus, consistently been adopted. See, judgment of 10 May 1995, Alpine Investments (C\u2011384/93, EU:C:1995:126, paragraphs 33 to 38). In the latter judgment, the Court stated that the reason why legislation imposing certain selling arrangements in respect of goods falls outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU is that it does not prevent the access of imported products to the market of a Member State or impede them any more than it impedes the access of domestic products. In that case however, the prohibition of cold calling potential clients in another Member State imposed on financial intermediaries who offered off-market commodities futures was held to be a restriction of the freedom to provide services. Despite the fact that I may think that cold calling is a quintessential selling method/arrangement, the Court found that no analogy could be drawn with the judgment of 24 November 1993, Keck and Mithouard (C\u2011267/91 and C\u2011268/91, EU:C:1993:905) as the prohibition of cold calling in question directly affected access to the market in services."], "id": "cd935454-1597-45fe-bf66-fda6d12b9313", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["However, it is important to note that Member States, in making use of this option, must respect the fundamental rules of the TFEU, in particular those relating to the , the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as well as the principles deriving from them, such as the principles of equal treatment and proportionality (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 October 2019, Irgita, C\u2011285/18, EU:C:2019:829, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited), which are, moreover, reflected in Article 18 of Directive 2014/24."], "id": "e764a8ca-7c85-4af0-b5c3-c6147be6d563", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Delfarma requested a review of its application, asking the President of the Office to refrain from applying Article 2(7b)(b) of the Law on medicinal products on the ground that that provision introduces a restriction on the prohibited by Article 34 TFEU. In support of that request Delfarma, first, challenged the finding that the equivalent of a reference medicinal product and a reference medicinal product cannot be regarded as identical or similar for the sole reason that they have been authorised on the basis of different documentation. Second, it argued that the additional requirement, laid down in Article 2(7b)(b) of the Law on medicinal products, pursuant to which the imported medicinal product and the medicinal product authorised in the importing State must be in the same registration category of medicinal products, was formal in nature and was not justified on grounds of protection of public health."], "id": "117484a9-1dbb-469e-a2d0-1799fd22801d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["National legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may concern both the freedom to provide services, mentioned by the referring court in its question, in so far as it applies to pharmacies whose activities include the retail sale of medicinal products, and to the , since it governs the conditions for the issue of certain types of medicinal products, by pharmacies, to health professionals authorised to prescribe medicinal products and to exercise their activity in a Member State other than that in which those pharmacies are established."], "id": "7d76bf0b-d136-44ff-ab16-99189b244659", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["A appealed against that decision to the cour d\u2019appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France), arguing that Articles R. 4235-22 and R. 4235-64 of the Public Health Code do not apply to it. Those provisions, it argued, constitute barriers to the principle of the application of the rules of the country of origin, laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31 and Article 85c of Directive 2001/83, and to the guaranteed under Article 34 TFEU, which are not justified by the protection of public health."], "id": "178e5a30-9248-4c4b-8d09-5a94273fc2e9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, before turning to the scope of Article 18 TFEU as a free-standing provision (4), I shall first explore whether there are any specific provisions of secondary law that are relevant (1), the implications and reach of the rules in the present case (2), and the possibility of patients who suffered harm in other Member States receiving insurance services (3)."], "id": "5db08c2e-832f-4fb9-9896-b1c335f94fbc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Articles 34 and 36 TFEU \u2014 \u2014 Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction \u2014 Protection of health and life of humans \u2014 Parallel import of medicinal products \u2014 Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products \u2014 Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products)"], "id": "e9804c10-ff37-4de8-acdc-7f9fb5b6260b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission considers that the restriction in question cannot be justified in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. It notes that Directive 2019/633 identifies in a precise manner 16 unfair trading practices which are prohibited. Thus not every situation which is presumed unfair is prohibited. As the contested measure applies in a very general manner to all decisions on the fixing of price by a retailer, the Commission considers that Paragraph 3(2)(u) of Law XCV of 2009 is contrary to the general principles laid down in Regulation No 1308/2013 and the relevant case-law, as it affects a large range of agricultural and food products when it limits the freedom to fix prices in the supply chain. In paragraph 20 of the judgment of 23 December 2015, Scotch Whisky Association and Others (C\u2011333/14, EU:C:2015:845), the Court stated that the free formation of selling prices on the basis of fair competition is a component of Regulation No 1308/2013 and constitutes the expression of the principle of in conditions of effective competition. The Commission considers that Paragraph 3(2)(u) of Law XCV of 2009 is thus incompatible with that judgment."], "id": "5cdd8958-4061-4399-90eb-bdb3103edd3a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["61. Since the prohibition on measures having an effect equivalent to [quantitative restrictions on] imports is of a residual nature in relation to the other prohibitions laid down in the TFEU in connection with the , (32) it is appropriate to look first at the compatibility of the Italian scheme with the prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent effect [to customs duties on imports] and the prohibition on discriminatory internal taxation. 1. Prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties on imports (Articles 28 and 30 TFUE)"], "id": "84a2db5e-aa31-458e-8e2b-a9cc42d122eb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The German Government contends that the Court should not rely on the distinction in primary EU law regarding the and services, since the subject matter of Directive 86/653 is the harmonisation of the activity of commercial agents, and thus its scope must be determined functionally against that background, such that the interpretation most favourable to the commercial agent should, as far as possible, be made. It emphasises that a narrow interpretation of \u2018sale of goods\u2019 in Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 as covering only tangible goods undermines the objective of protecting commercial agents pursued by that directive, as a significant part of the traditional field of activity of commercial agents in Germany would no longer fall within the scope of that directive."], "id": "22cea9a9-b021-4b35-b6b8-7c1dba9b394f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Thirdly, although a parallel interpretation of the fundamental freedoms should in principle be favoured, it is difficult to draw comparisons between the and the freedom to provide services when it comes to the doctrine of selling arrangements and market access. It is easier to develop such a doctrine in the context of (mainly) tangible goods. With services, matters are different: because of the non-tangible nature of service, it is more difficult to determine what constitutes the service itself and what is not directly related to the service."], "id": "30a3ae3c-eaf4-4dc3-af92-a69f171c4695", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["6 Recitals 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 2011/83 are worded as follows: \u2018(4) In accordance with Article 26(2) TFEU, the internal market is to comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the and services and freedom of establishment are ensured. The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance and off-premises contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity. (5) \u2026 The full harmonisation of consumer information and the right of withdrawal in distance and off-premises contracts will contribute to a high level of consumer protection and a better functioning of the business-to-consumer internal market. \u2026 (7) Full harmonisation of some key regulatory aspects should considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and traders. Both consumers and traders should be able to rely on a single regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts regulating certain aspects of business-to-consumer contracts across the Union. The effect of such harmonisation should be to eliminate the barriers stemming from the fragmentation of the rules and to complete the internal market in this area. Those barriers can only be eliminated by establishing uniform rules at Union level. Furthermore consumers should enjoy a high common level of protection across the Union.\u2019"], "id": "bf178cf6-b206-4a39-90c7-fce932948c8b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["B. S. and C. A. appealed against the judgment of the Tribunal correctionnel de Marseille (Criminal Court, Marseille) before the Cour d\u2019appel d\u2019Aix-en-Provence (Court of Appeal, Aix-en-Provence). The latter court questions whether the Decree of 22 August 1990 complies with the principle of the , since that decree restricts the importation of a product which, because it has a THC content below the legal threshold of 0.20%, cannot be regarded as a narcotic drug. It also questions whether the Decree of 22 August 1990 complies with Regulations No 1307/2013 and No 1308/2013, which allow the cultivation and importation into the European Union of hemp with a THC content below 0.20%."], "id": "804d33a8-1018-4e73-b666-c737b669e5c6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["40. I therefore conclude that the BPR does not preclude the prohibition at issue. The latter nevertheless remains subject, as regards situations involving a cross-border element and considering the specifics of the present case, (25) to the Treaty provisions on the , to which I shall now turn. 2. Limits flowing from Articles 34 and 36 TFEU"], "id": "a349dae9-745f-4b3d-b900-ed218000687e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["6. Directive 2014/24 lays down rules that seek to coordinate national procedures for the award of public contracts above a certain threshold amount so that they may be consistent with the principle of the , freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, as well as ensuring the implementation of principles, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency. That directive is also intended to ensure effective competition in public procurement."], "id": "db79d6a3-2023-4dba-97c3-0660d50d5ff9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, even if the applicants\u2019 general allegations concerning the existence of a public interest in the guarantee of access to harmonised standards that is freely available and without charge were to be accepted, the disclosure of the requested harmonised standards in the present case is unlikely to serve that interest. Irrespective of the nature of the right to which their design gives rise for their creators, access to harmonised standards remains subject to restrictions, such as the payment of the fees established by the national standardisation bodies on the basis of the system of European standardisation or the consultation for free in certain libraries. It is thus necessary to endorse the Commission\u2019s assessment that the public interest in ensuring the functioning of the European standardisation system, the aim of which is to promote the while guaranteeing an equivalent minimum level of safety in all European countries, prevails over the guarantee of freely available access to the harmonised standards without charge."], "id": "369e1641-0d78-464c-9d29-218c45468c24", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the Commission observes that, in the absence of a pricing mechanism, the free formation of selling prices on the basis of fair competition is a component of Regulation No 1308/2013 and constitutes the expression of the principle of in conditions of effective competition. Moreover, it maintains that any common organisation of the market (\u2018the CMO\u2019) is based on the concept of an open market to which every producer has free access in conditions of effective competition."], "id": "6943f185-b37b-4cca-ae28-ff7f61a9f08a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["It is, in each particular case, for the national authorities to provide the necessary evidence to that effect. Where a national court examines national legislation in the light of the justification relating to protection of human health and human life under Article 36 TFEU, that court must examine objectively whether it may reasonably be concluded from the evidence submitted by the Member State concerned that the means chosen are appropriate for the attainment of the objectives pursued and whether it is possible to attain those objectives by measures that are less restrictive of the (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 September 2008, Commission v Germany, C\u2011141/07, EU:C:2008:492, paragraph 50, and of 19 October 2016, Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung, C\u2011148/15, EU:C:2016:776, paragraphs 35 and 36 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "034d79cb-05d8-4768-a7fe-dbfee40994b6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Article 38(1) of Regulation No 1169/2011 is clear, \u2018as regards the matters specifically harmonised by this Regulation, Member States may not adopt nor maintain national measures unless authorised by Union law\u2019. On the contrary, it follows from Article 38(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011 that Member States may adopt national measures concerning matters not specifically harmonised by that regulation provided that they do not prohibit, impede or restrict the that are in conformity with the regulation."], "id": "f6ea84ec-6740-468a-8920-07725f95c034", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it must be noted that, according to the Court\u2019s settled case-law, Directive 2001/83 cannot apply to a medicinal product covered by a marketing authorisation in one Member State which is being imported into another Member State as a parallel import of a medicinal product already covered by a marketing authorisation in that other Member State, because the imported medicinal product cannot, in such a case, be regarded as being placed on the market for the first time in the Member State of importation. Such a situation therefore falls under the provisions of the TFEU on the , including Articles 34 and 36 TFEU (judgment of 3 July 2019, Delfarma, C\u2011387/18, EU:C:2019:556, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited), which, in essence, prohibit Member States, in principle, from imposing quantitative restrictions on imports and measures having equivalent effect, which may, however, be justified, inter alia, on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans."], "id": "e9960ca4-5f71-4f2a-ab12-a58723295eb4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Self-supply on the part of public entities, be this in the form of \u2018in-house\u2019 or \u2018horizontal\u2019 cooperation, is not without risk for the and services. Equally legitimate are the misgivings about its effects on free competition beyond the situation expressly referred to in the second paragraph, in fine, of recital 33 of Directive 2014/24, which warns against cooperation that places an economic operator in a position of advantage vis-\u00e0-vis other competitors."], "id": "3719ecab-c522-4e1f-8e67-fe6aaa8ede56", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["This is true in particular of the and, to a lesser extent, the freedom to provide services and with the free movement of workers (the order contains only the odd reference to these two freedoms). The national court\u2019s reasoning a quo centres on the freedom of establishment, which is understandable, given that the dispute concerns the restrictions which the Belgian rules on the recruitment of dockers entail for undertakings from other Member States that wish to establish themselves and provide services in Belgian ports."], "id": "6b1a4bc1-3608-47e1-9de1-85b00bc84238", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["47 For example, Directive 2008/50 provides that the Member States are to take \u2018appropriate measures\u2019 to ensure that, where the limit values are exceeded, the exceedance period is as short as possible. Furthermore, as is apparent from the Court\u2019s case-law resulting from the judgment of 4 June 2009, Mickelsson and Roos (C\u2011142/05, EU:C:2009:336), and from paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal, rules such as those relating to the and the right to property, protected by EU law under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are liable to render restrictions on the use of newly registered vehicles with low pollutant emissions disproportionate. The partial annulment of the regulation at issue would have no effect on that legal situation, with the result that there is no link between the \u2018regulatory powers\u2019 of infra-State bodies in that field and the regulation at issue."], "id": "26e9f813-9088-470f-99f8-9336a4de600c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the possible justifications for the national rules in question, the Commission notes that a measure which constitutes a restriction pursuant to Article 34 TFEU may be justified in accordance with Article 36 TFEU or for overriding reasons in the public interest. However, in accordance with the case-law, a provision which is capable of restricting a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, such as the , can be properly justified only if it is appropriate for securing the attainment of a legitimate objective and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. The Commission considers that the national measure in question is neither appropriate nor proportionate."], "id": "120f974d-4153-4440-8559-ba786060050c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Articles 34 and 36 TFUE \u2013 \u2013 Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction \u2013 Medicinal products for human use \u2013 Parallel import of medicinal products \u2013 Legislation of a Member State under which a parallel import licence is to expire automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product \u2013 Protection of the health and life of humans \u2013 Proportionality \u2013 Directive 2001/83/EC \u2013 Pharmacovigilance)"], "id": "9b6eed9c-af9f-48bf-9631-c80234762723", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Hidroelectrica challenged the sanction before the Judec\u0103torie Sectorului 1 Bucure\u0219ti (Court of First Instance, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania), claiming that it was invalid on the grounds that it infringed the principle of the . Specifically, it argued that ANRE had interpreted Article 23(1) of Law No 123/2012 contrary to the legal thinking developed by the Consiliul Concuren\u021bei (Romanian competition authority) and to its own precedents."], "id": "1184d5ca-a827-43a8-b0a1-4f3497dc689c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["24 In the first \u2018Feta\u2019 case, which concerned Greek measures that prevented the marketing of cheese from Denmark bearing the name \u2018Feta\u2019, Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer considered that such measures constituted an obstacle to the and thus were caught by the EU rules prohibiting measures of equivalent effect on imports (what is now Article 34 TFEU). However, the Advocate General was of the opinion that such measures, even if being an obstacle to trade, could be justified by the protection of industrial and commercial property. See footnote 11 of this Opinion."], "id": "9e88e009-b0a6-475e-bfec-e73a882d4a0f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Whereas the internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the , persons, services and capital is guaranteed; whereas free movement of goods concerns not only transactions by persons acting in the course of a business but also transactions by private individuals; whereas it implies that consumers resident in one Member State should be free to purchase goods in the territory of another Member State on the basis of a uniform minimum set of fair rules governing the sale of consumer goods;"], "id": "54eb3f32-0ecf-4cd5-b685-ef927a1e31da", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["3 According to recital 4 of the VAT Directive: \u2018The attainment of the objective of establishing an internal market presupposes the application in Member States of legislation on turnover taxes that does not distort conditions of competition or hinder the and services. It is therefore necessary to achieve such harmonisation of legislation on turnover taxes by means of a system of [VAT], such as will eliminate, as far as possible, factors which may distort conditions of competition, whether at national or Community level.\u2019"], "id": "841c9f01-071b-449e-b1b9-dacaf909c197", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["As far back as in 1981, the Court held that \u2018criminal legislation and the rules of criminal procedure are matters for which the Member States are still responsible. However \u2026 that Community law also sets certain limits in that area as regards the control measures which it permits the Member States to maintain in connection with the and persons\u2019. That must a fortiori be true some 40 years later, when the Member States have made a commitment to offer their citizens \u2018an area of freedom, security and justice [(\u2018AFSJ\u2019)] without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured\u2019."], "id": "115480c2-e41a-4132-8796-c4a01d5618ad", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Judgments of 2 September 2015, Groupe Steria (C\u2011386/14, EU:C:2015:524, paragraph 39); of 26 October 2010, Schmelz (C\u201197/09, EU:C:2010:632, paragraph 50); and of 18 September 2003, Bosal (C\u2011168/01, EU:C:2003:479, paragraphs 25 and 26). See, by analogy, in relation to the , judgments of 25 June 1997, Kieffer and Thill (C\u2011114/96, EU:C:1997:316, paragraph 27), and of 12 July 2012, Association Kokopelli (C\u201159/11, EU:C:2012:447, paragraph 80)."], "id": "6862643f-85b8-426f-be82-ab5a0d463be2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018The attainment of the objective of establishing an internal market presupposes the application in Member States of legislation on turnover taxes that does not distort conditions of competition or hinder the and services. It is therefore necessary to achieve such harmonisation of legislation on turnover taxes by means of a system of value added tax (VAT), such as will eliminate, as far as possible, factors which may distort conditions of competition, whether at national or Community level.\u2019"], "id": "c8231604-06a9-4278-8dd4-ab62854eb911", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Member States may only adopt or maintain additional national provisions on products covered by a Union marketing standard if those provisions comply with Union law, in particular the principle of , and subject to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37)] \u2026\u2019"], "id": "856fcf5d-22ef-46ce-ac47-f53085432e74", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Assuming that national legislation such as that referred to in paragraph 80 of the present judgment were liable to restrict also the , in so far as dockers also carry out work relating to the transport of goods transiting through ports, it is clear that such a restriction would be entirely secondary in relation to restrictions on the freedom of movement for workers and services, as well as on the freedom of establishment."], "id": "3314a89b-4fad-4061-9391-3df6624f7a56", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission considers that the interference in the free pricing policy in question is aimed at protecting certain national economic operators rather than defending the interests of consumers as claimed by Hungary. In order to defend the interests of consumers, it would be sufficient to prohibit sales below cost. In the present case, the State intervention goes beyond a ban on sales below cost and does not appear to bring any benefit to the consumer. According to the Commission, Paragraph 3(2)(u) of Law XCV of 2009 constitutes per se an arbitrary discrimination and a practice contrary to Article 34 TFEU such that different statistical data, which might tend to prove that the contested measure is not discriminatory, is irrelevant. The Commission also considers that the term \u2018identical products\u2019 gives rise to uncertainty and thus to a breach of Article 34 TFEU. In that regard, the Commission notes that certain retailers could, for example, indicate on the product the breed of cows that produced the UHT milk, as some already do for meat products. Due to the national rules in question, these products may not be sold at a higher price since, according to Hungary, the same profit margin should be applied to all UHT milk with a fat content of, for example, 2.8%. This could negatively influence the consumer and affect the ."], "id": "dadc87d3-7ca6-49e1-9e3f-b4f294aebf61", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to the French Republic\u2019s argument that the need to comply with EU law and, in particular, the limits the discretion of Member States in adopting measures seeking to reduce the NO2 emissions generated by road traffic, such as a sectoral traffic prohibition, it must be recalled, as is apparent from paragraphs 117, 138 and 140 of the judgment of 21 December 2011, Commission v Austria (C\u201128/09, EU:C:2011:854), that the Court has held that such a sectoral prohibition may be appropriate for attaining the objective of protection of the environment and thus justify an obstacle to the free movement of goods, provided that, in view of the objective thus pursued, no measures exist which are less restrictive of freedom of movement."], "id": "30b0f2b5-5b1d-4d93-acec-e0396adf9004", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["It must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the aim of Article 110 TFEU is to ensure between the Member States in normal conditions of competition. To that end, Article 110 intends to eliminate all forms of protection which may result from the application of internal taxation that discriminates against products from other Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 April 2011, Tatu, C\u2011402/09, EU:C:2011:219, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "f9a80428-cd93-4b69-9566-3bab873e776b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 23 to 26 and 61 of Directive 2009/73 state: \u2018(3) The freedoms which the Treaty guarantees the citizens of the Union \u2013 inter alia, the , the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services \u2013 are achievable only in a fully open market, which enables all consumers freely to choose their suppliers and all suppliers freely to deliver to their customers. (4) However, at present, there are obstacles to the sale of gas on equal terms and without discrimination or disadvantages in the Community. In particular, non-discriminatory network access and an equally effective level of regulatory supervision in each Member State do not yet exist. \u2026 (8) Only the removal of the incentive for vertically integrated undertakings to discriminate against competitors as regards network access and investment can ensure effective unbundling. Ownership unbundling, which implies the appointment of the network owner as the system operator and its independence from any supply and production interests, is clearly an effective and stable way to solve the inherent conflict of interests and to ensure security of supply. For that reason, the European Parliament, in its resolution of 10 July 2007 on prospects for the internal gas and electricity market [(OJ 2008 C 175 E, p. 206),] referred to ownership unbundling at transmission level as the most effective tool by which to promote investments in infrastructure in a non-discriminatory way, fair access to the network for new entrants and transparency in the market. \u2026 \u2026 (14) Where, on 3 September 2009, an undertaking owning a transmission system is part of a vertically integrated undertaking, Member States should therefore be given a choice between ownership unbundling and setting up a system operator or transmission operator which is independent from supply and production interests. \u2026 (16) The full effectiveness of the independent system operator or independent transmission operator solutions should be ensured by way of specific additional rules. The rules on the independent transmission operator provide an appropriate regulatory framework to guarantee fair competition, sufficient investment, access for new market entrants and the integration of gas markets. Effective unbundling through the independent transmission operator provisions should be based on a pillar of organisational measures and measures relating to the governance of transmission system operators and on a pillar of measures relating to investment, connecting new production capacities to the network and market integration through regional cooperation. The independence of the transmission operator should also, inter alia, be ensured through certain \u201ccooling-off\u201d periods during which no management or other relevant activity giving access to the same information as could have been obtained in a managerial position is exercised in the vertically integrated undertaking. The independent transmission operator model of effective unbundling is in line with the requirements laid down by the European Council at its meeting on 8 and 9 March 2007. \u2026 (23) Further measures should be taken in order to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory tariffs for access to transport. Those tariffs should be applicable to all users on a non-discriminatory basis. Where a storage facility, linepack or ancillary service operates in a sufficiently competitive market, access could be allowed on the basis of transparent and non-discriminatory market-based mechanisms. (24) It is necessary to ensure the independence of storage system operators in order to improve third-party access to storage facilities that are technically and/or economically necessary for providing efficient access to the system for the supply of customers. \u2026 (25) Non-discriminatory access to the distribution network determines downstream access to customers at retail level. \u2026 To create a level playing field at retail level, the activities of distribution system operators should therefore be monitored so that they are prevented from taking advantage of their vertical integration as regards their competitive position on the market, in particular in relation to household and small non-household customers. (26) Member States should take concrete measures to assist the wider use of biogas and gas from biomass, the producers of which should be granted non-discriminatory access to the gas system, provided that such access is compatible with the relevant technical rules and safety standards on an ongoing basis. \u2026 (61) Under Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks [and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36)], the [European] Commission may adopt Guidelines to achieve the necessary degree of harmonisation. Such Guidelines, which constitute binding implementing measures, are, also with regard to certain provisions of this Directive, a useful tool which can be adapted quickly where necessary.\u2019"], "id": "82cc49db-08d4-47d7-939d-3f72cef28d32", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has not yet had the opportunity to deal with this concept of EU law directly, but has mentioned it incidentally in cases relating to the (judgment of 23 November 1978, Thompson and Others (7/78, EU:C:1978:209)), in matters of value added tax (judgments of 14 July 1998, First National Bank of Chicago (C\u2011172/96, EU:C:1998:354, paragraph 25), and of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist (C\u2011264/14, EU:C:2015:718, paragraphs 25 and 44 et seq.)), and in matters of transport (judgment of 15 November 2018, Verbraucherzentrale Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg (C\u2011330/17, EU:C:2018:916))."], "id": "3246cd49-33ae-4ba5-b8d2-dcb646b1b0e1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, since the energy imported into Spain is not subject to the IVPEE, that tax favours electricity producers from other Member States and is thus the source of distortion of competition, prohibited by Article 107(1) TFEU. The creation of such an anti-competitive advantage in favour of non-national producers also affects the , freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, governed by Directive 2009/72, which requires that third party access to the network in question is ensured in an objective and non-discriminatory manner."], "id": "c6ec2e57-4ca6-4d67-962e-9e40d427c92f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["I also note that, although the Court considered on two occasions that cannabis-based products did not fall within the scope of the rules on the , neither of those cases involved CBD. The first case involved hashish, a cannabis resin concentrate, and the second case involved cannabis sold in Dutch coffee-shops, which most certainly contained a high level of THC."], "id": "44de2e55-31e8-4491-85a7-697080706dd7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["53 However, in order for such a system to be applicable, it must comply with the requirements of EU law. In that regard, it is necessary that its application does not compromise the objectives of Regulation No 1151/2012. In view of the scope of that regulation, this entails that the protection granted by the national scheme concerned need not have the effect of guaranteeing to consumers that the products which enjoy that protection have a specific quality or characteristic, but only of ensuring that those products come from the geographical area concerned. Moreover, it is necessary that that application does not contravene the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to the (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2014, Assica and Kraft Foods Italia, C\u201135/13, EU:C:2014:306, paragraphs 33 to 35)."], "id": "d30228ad-65bb-4ee2-9202-19b3557939c2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The freedom of the Member States as to the choice of the management method that they judge to be most appropriate for the performance of works or the provision of services cannot, however, be unlimited. That freedom must, on the contrary, be exercised with due regard to the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular the , the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency (the judgment in Irgita, paragraph 48)."], "id": "4718151d-5f81-4f53-9fba-fc9a98795f88", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["10 According to the appellant, the legal issues raised in support of its appeal are of unquestionable significance with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law because they are linked to the principle of legal certainty and the in so far as they relate to the scope of protection of EU trade marks. Those issues also contribute to the development of EU law since they concern the criteria to be applied in assessing, for the purposes of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009, whether the goods in respect of which the mark was registered are the same as those in connection with which it has been used, criteria which are likely to apply in all cases concerning the assessment of genuine use of an EU trade mark and which have not yet been analysed in the case-law of the Court of Justice."], "id": "c3cf4599-964b-4d73-8f6e-e2c7667c3279", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with those principles, the Court examined national measures restricting an undertaking\u2019s advertising of the goods which it offers for sale in the light of the alone. The dissemination of advertising was regarded, rather than as an end in itself, as a secondary element in relation to the sale of the goods in question. The Court also assessed national measures governing the sale of goods over the internet \u2013 which nonetheless constitutes an information society service \u2013 solely on the basis of Article 34 TFEU."], "id": "52a778cc-d8a2-4f24-94d3-bf7077283bb5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that the Treaty rules on are not applicable to the conditions concerning the subsequent use of goods in the host Member State, provided that those conditions do not directly and immediately hinder access to the market of that Member State. From the point of view of the end user, an obligation on a manufacturer to take out insurance against civil liability for defective products, or the absence of any such obligation, exclusively concerns the conditions of subsequent use of the goods on the territory of the host Member State and does not directly and immediately concern either exit of the goods from the home Member State or access to the market of the host Member State."], "id": "03d85ee2-0a8a-4939-8591-858e25bf7746", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, the referring court questions whether that provision is compatible with EU law, taking the view that \u2018True hemp (Cannabis sativa), raw or processed but not spun; tow and waste of true hemp (including pulled or garnetted rags or ropes)\u2019 is listed in Chapter 57 of the HS Convention, referred to in Annex I to the Treaties, and that it should therefore be regarded as an agricultural product, within the meaning of Article 38 TFEU, which puts in place an internal market based on the ."], "id": "16e2da9c-03bb-4b58-8bf4-0171763b2081", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["On the other hand, the French Republic considers that the measures which it took are being hampered by the impact of population growth, accentuated by changes in modes of transport. Moreover, the measures to be adopted by Member States, which aim, in particular, to restrict traffic on busy roads, should take account of the features of urbanisation of the zones and agglomerations concerned. It is important that those measures do not cause traffic, and therefore, necessarily, harmful emissions, to be moved towards other urban areas and roads which are unsuitable or of insufficient size, and that they take into account the transport needs of the population. The French Republic emphasises, in that regard, that the discretion which Member States have in transposing Directive 2008/50 must be exercised in compliance with the provisions of the Treaties, in particular the fundamental principle of the and persons, which does not allow, for example, sectoral traffic prohibitions to be introduced."], "id": "096d9812-5e33-48f1-ac2a-417539393dae", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Second, and in any event, an interpretation which leads to the exclusion of whole animals, such as insects, from the scope of Regulation No 258/97 does not in itself prejudice the objective of protecting human health. As follows from the foregoing considerations, the fact that whole insects do not fall within the scope of that regulation implies only a lack of harmonisation of the conditions for placing them on the market at EU level and, therefore, that no notification or authorisation is necessary under that regulation. According to settled case-law, it is for the Member States, in the absence of harmonisation and to the extent that uncertainties continue to exist, to decide on their intended level of protection of human health and life and on whether to require prior authorisation for the placing on the market of foods, taking into account the requirements of the within the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 April 2010, Solgar Vitamin\u2019s France and Others, C\u2011446/08, EU:C:2010:233, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). Therefore, the fact that whole insects are exempted from the safety assessment provided for by Regulation No 258/97 does not exclude the possibility for Member States to provide for such an assessment in their national legislation of the possible danger which whole insects may present for public health."], "id": "535f7c4e-a027-4712-8791-642fcdd2f10c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["While it applies indiscriminately, the restriction on the lawful means of payment by which a company established in a Member State may pay dividends which have fallen due for payment to its shareholders is liable to dissuade certain investors and non-residents from acquiring a shareholding in a company established in that Member State. It should be observed, in that regard, that the articles of the FEU Treaty relating to the , persons, services and capital are fundamental provisions of EU law and that any restriction of that freedom, however minor, is prohibited (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 December 2013, Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinn\u00fctzigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs, C\u2011514/12, EU:C:2013:799, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1fcd2d4a-4224-41fd-b54d-5f108545d84e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The parties and interested parties which have submitted observations to the Court disagree as to whether national measures prohibiting pharmacies from mass-mailing advertising leaflets and offering through their websites reductions above certain purchase thresholds, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be examined in the light of the guaranteed in Article 34 TFEU, as suggested by the referring court, in the light of the freedom to provide services provided for in Article 56 TFEU or in the light of both those freedoms in turn."], "id": "d8253495-8af3-4105-9764-f7aca28a0670", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The means that an operator who has bought a medicinal product lawfully marketed in one Member State under a marketing authorisation issued in that State can import that medicinal product into another Member State where it already has a marketing authorisation, without having to obtain such an authorisation in accordance with Directive 2001/83 and without having to provide all the particulars and documentation required by the directive for the purpose of determining whether the medicinal product is effective and safe. Therefore, a Member State must not obstruct parallel imports of a medicinal product by requiring parallel importers to satisfy the same requirements as those which are applicable to undertakings applying for the first time for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product, subject to the condition, however, that the import of that medicinal product does not undermine the protection of public health (judgment of 3 July 2019, Delfarma, C\u2011387/18, EU:C:2019:556, paragraphs 21 and 22 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "880eed98-e7e1-4b6e-87c1-65775c011371", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["60. It will not be necessary to analyse the Italian legislation in the light of Article 18 TFEU because this applies only in the event that there are no more specific provisions that reflect the principle of non-discrimination. (31) This is [not] the case in the context of the (which includes electricity imports), since Articles 30, 34 and 110 TFEU refer specifically to the principle of non-discrimination, which Article 18 TFEU establishes generically."], "id": "97358165-7972-46e0-bf90-e92238c13abf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["According to the applicants, since the requested harmonised standards form part of EU law, as the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 27 October 2016, James Elliott Construction (C\u2011613/14, EU:C:2016:821), there is an \u2018automatic overriding public interest\u2019 justifying the disclosure of those harmonised standards. They rely inter alia on the principle of legal certainty, which can be guaranteed only by proper publication of the law in the official language of the addressee of that law. They also refer to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the accessibility of the law. They also emphasise the link between the accessibility of standards and the proper functioning of the internal market. Lastly, they submit that the principle of good administration, laid down in Article 41 of the Charter, and the and the freedom to provide services, guaranteed in Articles 34 and 56 TFEU, require free access to the standards."], "id": "10289bc6-4ae0-45ca-acee-4d1c849d3e96", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["35 It should be specified in that respect that the fact that a right or permits are set down in documents which, as such, may be the subject of trade is not sufficient to bring them within the scope of the provisions of the Treaty relating to the , as opposed to those relating to the freedom to provide services (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 October 1999, J\u00e4gerski\u00f6ld, C\u201197/98, EU:C:1999:515, paragraphs 35 and 36)."], "id": "ad61bc00-d464-4fa6-8e7d-991e61c2cec2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018The award of public contracts by or on behalf of Member States\u2019 authorities has to comply with the principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the , freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. However, for public contracts above a certain value, provisions should be drawn up coordinating national procurement procedures so as to ensure that those principles are given practical effect and public procurement is opened up to competition.\u2019"], "id": "72d77b63-64e0-4e4b-aed3-3a149fd47e30", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Fourthly, infringement of the right to work and to the free choice of occupation, freedom to conduct a business and the and services, because it is impossible for religious butchers to practise their occupation, in that it is impossible for butchers and butcher\u2019s shops to offer meat to their customers with the guarantee that it comes from animals that have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rules, and because it distorts competition between slaughterhouses located in the Flemish Region and slaughterhouses located in the Brussels Capital Region or in another Member State of the European Union where the slaughter of animals without stunning is permitted;"], "id": "8e24c076-a897-4ea3-b47a-cac144a24342", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In the third place, although the referring court in Case C\u2011407/19 has also referred, in the wording of its questions, to Articles 34 and 35 TFEU, relating to the , it should be borne in mind, however, that it has not given any indication as to the practical effect on that freedom of national legislation such as that referred to in those questions."], "id": "0ab341d9-3303-4ed6-a2cf-3b25b7a95ecd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["56 The City of Brussels disputes that the General Court confused Directive 2007/46 with Directive 2008/50. In any event, it is not contested that the measures adopted by the respondent cities must comply with EU law, whether it be Directive 2008/50 or the principle of . Those considerations are, however, insufficient to support the conclusion that the regulation at issue does not prevent those cities from exercising their own powers as they see fit."], "id": "b1c2b045-0662-466d-b725-fd21ca141d7c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Member States may only adopt or maintain additional national provisions on products covered by a Union marketing standard if those provisions comply with Union law, in particular the principle of , and subject to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37)].\u2019"], "id": "fc5ca903-23b7-41b9-8263-4a6e4e48c8a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["However, and as is clear from paragraph 48 of the present judgment, in relation to the , persons, services and capital the measures adopted by the EU legislature, whether measures for the harmonisation of legislation of the Member States or measures for the coordination of that legislation, not only have the objective of facilitating the exercise of one of those freedoms, but also seek to ensure, when necessary, the protection of other fundamental interests recognised by the Union which may be affected by that freedom."], "id": "64f86dad-3a80-4ae3-8e5f-359177436bb4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["As the Court has pointed out, in the absence of a pricing mechanism, the free formation of selling prices on the basis of fair competition is a component of Regulation No 1308/2013 and constitutes the expression of the principle of in conditions of effective competition (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 December 2015, Scotch Whisky Association and Others, C\u2011333/14, EU:C:2015:845, paragraph 20)."], "id": "e7a79089-eb00-4285-a87a-fc8b0356d0d0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["When dealing with the first question for a preliminary ruling, I have already expressed the view that the Court does not have sufficient information to determine whether national legislation making the use of esterified vegetable oils as fuel in an installation producing emissions into the atmosphere subject to compliance with the regulations on waste incineration constitutes an unwarranted obstacle to the enshrined in Article 34 TFEU (see points 73 and 74 of this Opinion)."], "id": "67325fd0-d489-4167-b390-3ef5558b5d22", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 4 and 49 of Directive 2011/83 are worded as follows: \u2018(4) In accordance with Article 26(2) TFEU, the internal market is to comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the and services and freedom of establishment are ensured. The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance and off-premises contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity. \u2026 (49) Certain exceptions from the right of withdrawal should exist, both for distance and off-premises contracts. \u2026 The granting of a right of withdrawal to the consumer could also be inappropriate in the case of certain services where the conclusion of the contract implies the setting aside of capacity which, if a right of withdrawal were exercised, the trader may find difficult to fill. This would for example be the case where reservations are made at hotels or concerning holiday cottages or cultural or sporting events.\u2019"], "id": "0d52537c-d5cd-4068-8899-9558389c6a49", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["24. Axpo has appealed the judgment of 18 September 2017 to the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), requesting that the Italian legislation at issue be disapplied. In support of its claim, it argues, in essence, that the obligation to purchase green certificates in order to be able to import RES-E infringes the rules of the TFEU concerning State aid, the customs union, the and equal treatment, as well as the EEC-Switzerland Agreement."], "id": "2ea72f1d-d50f-402a-93f1-b0d434a52427", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["As Daniel B and Others and the Spanish Government argue, the patient\u2019s option of consulting the pharmacist before placing an order, even when coupled with checks on the quantities purchased following the first order, is not as effective as verification at an earlier stage \u2013 by means of the prior collection of information from the patient \u2013 that his order is, in quantitative and qualitative terms, appropriate for his state of health. Moreover, the Court has already ruled that \u2018an increase in the number of online interactive features, which the customer must use before being able to proceed to a purchase\u2019 of a medicinal product is a measure which is less detrimental to the , is acceptable as an alternative to a prohibition of the online sale of medicinal products and permits as effectively attainment of the objective of reducing the risk of misuse of medicinal products purchased online."], "id": "ece36e56-d16d-4a5e-bcf1-39979e8f5124", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018It is essential for the establishment of the internal market that all internal frontiers in the [European Union] be dismantled so as to enable the , persons, services and capital. The proper operation of the single market in payment services is therefore vital. At present, however, the lack of harmonisation in this area hinders the operation of that market.\u2019"], "id": "057eba6c-7c59-421b-bf73-a33f0109e979", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["a description of the method of obtaining the product and, where appropriate, the authentic and unvarying local methods as well as information concerning packaging, if the applicant group so determines and gives sufficient product-specific justification as to why the packaging must take place in the defined geographical area to safeguard quality, to ensure the origin or to ensure control, taking into account Union law, in particular that on the and the free provision of services;"], "id": "d9a711c7-11ca-4f13-adfa-4eb90e7ce245", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, as the Board of Appeal stated, in essence, in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the contested decision, although it is clear from Article 9(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 9(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) that the registration of an EU trade mark confers on the proprietor exclusive rights therein, it follows from recital 10 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now recital 24 of Regulation 2017/1001) that there is no justification for protecting EU trade marks or, as against them, any trade mark which has been registered before them, except where the trade marks are actually used. An EU trade mark which is not used could obstruct competition by limiting the range of signs which can be registered as trade marks by others and by denying competitors the opportunity to use that trade mark or a similar one when putting onto the internal market goods or services which are identical or similar to those covered by the mark in question. Consequently, non-use of an EU trade mark also risks restricting the and services (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2012, Leno Merken, C\u2011149/11, EU:C:2012:816, paragraph 32)."], "id": "23e461d0-7bde-4b79-857d-c3ded6a7c143", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["That directive, as is apparent, in essence, from recital 1, seeks to ensure compliance, in the award of public contracts, with, inter alia, the , freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as well as with the principles deriving therefrom, in particular equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, and to ensure that public procurement is opened up to competition."], "id": "66946c86-1c55-4455-9830-d6d546d01908", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["In support of its action against that decision before the referring court, Delfarma criticised the President of the Office for failing to compare the two medicinal products concerned although he had information obtained from the competent authority in the United Kingdom and that, under Article 21a(5) of the Law on medicinal products, he had the option to request further information from that authority if he considered it necessary. Delfarma asserts that the President of the Office wrongly held that Article 2(7b)(b) of that law was justified on ground of safety, as his interpretation of that provision led him to exclude the option of carrying out an examination as to whether those two medicinal products are therapeutically identical, and it led to a decision which constitutes a restriction on the which is not justified on the basis of Article 36 TFEU."], "id": "74b8cc65-1c2d-4f15-b80e-684cd93b00d5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, since Directive 2000/35, adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC (now Article 114 TFEU), falls within the framework of the approximation of the laws of the Member States, the object of which is the establishment and functioning of the internal market, account may be taken, for the purposes of its interpretation, of the concepts of \u2018goods\u2019 and \u2018services\u2019 within the meaning of the provisions of the FEU Treaty providing for the and services, and the Court\u2019s case-law interpreting those fundamental freedoms (see, by analogy, judgment of 9 July 2020, RL (Directive combating late payment), C\u2011199/19, EU:C:2020:548, paragraph 30)."], "id": "0ec8a37b-c4bb-40cf-accd-b23325232818", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has held that \u2018it follows \u2026 from [those recitals] that the [EU] legislature intended to make the preservation of the rights connected to the trade mark conditional upon it actually being used. \u2026 [an EU] trade mark which is not used could obstruct competition by limiting the range of signs which can be registered as trade marks by others and by denying competitors the opportunity to use that trade mark or a similar one when putting onto the internal market goods or services which are identical or similar to those covered by the mark in question. Consequently, non-use of [an EU] trade mark also risks restricting the and services\u2019. While it is true that those comments refer to the purpose of revocation after five years of non-use, the sentiments expressed apply to the requirement of use throughout the life cycle of a mark, and so concerns about the cluttering of the register further lend support to a need for greater precision. The Court has previously held that the register of trade marks needs to be \u2018appropriate and precise\u2019. Indeed, register clutter imbalances the IP \u2018bargain\u2019 against the public interest, which requires those seeking protection to specify with clarity what it is they seek validly to protect."], "id": "7f0e379f-c124-4e1e-83e0-5cdc8cae6af8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of goods", "masked_sentences": ["Ibid., paragraph 37: \u2018the widest possible opening-up to competition is contemplated not only from the point of view of the Community interest in the and services but also the interest of the contracting authority concerned itself, which will thus have greater choice as to the most advantageous tender which is most suitable for the needs of the public authority in question\u2019."], "id": "5970b7a7-084e-4ee2-8fc2-334e711bcfef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Emergency ambulance transport services may be awarded as a priority, by direct contracting, to volunteer organisations which have been registered for at least 6 months in the national third sector register, which belong to a network of associations for the purposes of Article 41(2), and which are accredited under the relevant regional legislation, if any, where, by reason of the particular nature of the service, direct contracting ensures that a service which is in the public interest can be provided within a framework of effective contributions to social goals, which pursues objectives of solidarity, in an economically efficient and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the principles of transparency and .\u2019"], "id": "3dccec56-9069-49f6-8376-ba67fc4b81a8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In support of his claims for annulment, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 1.4 of the Staff Rules and Article 11 of Annex VII to those rules; second, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, the predictability of the law and the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff; third, infringement of the principle of , of Article 1.3 of the EIB\u2019s Staff Code of Conduct and of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and, fourth, infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the \u2018reasonable time\u2019 principle."], "id": "56dd0548-35e4-4f65-9520-059f17cef5b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["As follows, in essence, from paragraph 48 of the present judgment, the fact that an in-house transaction, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2014/24, does not fall within the scope of that directive cannot relieve the Member States or the contracting authorities of the obligation to have due regard to, inter alia, the principles of equal treatment, , mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency."], "id": "dea87fc2-b581-4ed7-8097-c4924a6d9a5b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["43 While it is admitted that the restrictions adopted by Member States, while establishing their rural development programme, must not deprive the Natura 2000 payments system of its the compensatory aim (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 March 2017, Lingur\u00e1r, C\u2011315/16, EU:C:2017:244, paragraph 28), the fact remains that those Member States may decide how the measures to achieve the objectives set out in Regulation No 1305/2013 are to be implemented in practice. Furthermore, when making these choices, those States must observe the general principles of EU law, such as and proportionality (see, to that effect, concerning the principle of proportionality, judgment of 30 March 2017, Lingur\u00e1r, C\u2011315/16, EU:C:2017:244, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "9d6a404c-cd15-4dc1-bda7-68bcd5dce902", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["I do not agree with this reasoning. First, the rules set out in Directive 94/22 are part of the body of public procurement rules, not of the competition rules. Although both sets of rules have the purpose of facilitating competition within the EU, which in turn aims at the furthering of the creation of an internal market, they have different starting points. While public procurement law regulates the behaviour of public authorities or public undertakings or undertakings that operate on the basis of special or exclusive rights granted by a Member State, competition rules deal with economic activities of undertakings. As such, the respective rules act at different levels. Whereas Articles 101 and 102 TFEU limit certain uncompetitive behaviour and the Merger Regulation aims to prevent structural changes to the market due to concentrations which would significantly impede effective competition, public procurement rules intend to give equal access to the market to all interested entities by applying the principles of transparency and . Only the Merger Regulation prevents the creation of a dominant position and that only in case of a concentration."], "id": "013775d2-8c5f-4414-970b-d1e96ed3fec5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["The applicants submit that the examination conducted by the Commission was inadequate, in particular as regards the proportionality of the measure at issue and its compatibility with the principle of and the principles of the free provision of services and of the freedom of establishment. The inadequate nature of that examination is evidence of the existence of serious difficulties, which should have led the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure and give the applicants the opportunity to submit their observations and, thus, to influence that investigation."], "id": "5e66d430-af3d-47fd-87e2-759de71587a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["During the legislative procedure, that rule was supplemented to make it clear that the principle of did not prevent the introduction of modulations to charges on objective and transparent public-interest grounds (Legislative Resolution of the European Parliament of 15 January 2008 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on airport charges (COM(2006) 0820 \u2014 C6\u20110056/2007 \u2014 2007/0013(COD)). Article 3 of the Directive refers to those modulations on the basis of \u2018relevant, objective and transparent criteria\u2019. In a similar vein, the Directive allows the level of charges to be varied in the event of different infrastructures or levels of service. However, these cannot be offered in a discriminatory manner (recital 15 and Article 10 of the Directive). Access is to be decided upon on the basis of objective criteria to be \u2018developed by an airport managing body\u2019."], "id": "a99d94eb-b4fb-4b02-be27-181f8eb72c54", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Is the fact that taxable persons under foreign ownership which operate a number of retail establishments through a single company and which are engaged in store retail trade in fact have to pay the special tax corresponding to the highest band of a steeply progressive tax rate, whereas taxable persons under domestic ownership operating as a franchise under a single banner \u2014 through stores which generally constitute independent companies \u2014 are in fact included in the exempt band or are subject to one of the lower tax rates following that band, with the result that the proportion of the tax paid by companies under foreign ownership of the total tax collected through the special tax is substantially higher than in the case of taxable persons under domestic ownership, compatible with the provisions of the FEU Treaty governing the principles of (Articles 18 TFEU and 26 TFEU), freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU), equal treatment as regards financial participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54 TFEU (Article 55 TFEU), freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), free movement of capital (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU) and equality of taxation of companies (Article 110 TFEU)?"], "id": "77ace15f-4f19-47c9-b0a9-cfff69d75044", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it seems to me relevant to note at the outset that the general EU law principle of \u2018has been implemented and put into effect by the framework agreement solely as regards differences in treatment as between fixed-term workers and permanent workers in a comparable situation\u2019. However, any differences in treatment between specific categories of fixed-term workers, such as those between fixed-term interim civil servants and fixed-term contract workers, are not covered by the principle of non-discrimination established by the framework agreement."], "id": "ba921629-a34d-4826-af80-3903e1e5daf4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["The sectoral proceedings were based on Article 144ter of the Law of 21 March 1991 on the reform of certain public commercial undertakings, imposing on universal postal service providers a number of and transparency obligations when adopting and applying their tariff systems. In this context, the IBPT stated expressly in its decision that it was not assessing whether bpost\u2019s conduct complied with EU or national competition rules, especially since it does not have the competence to do so."], "id": "d7b0fd49-bf85-44e5-a41a-f82242e273eb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Academic authorities have also lamented the relaxation of the three-step test of justification which, in order to be objective, requires that the means chosen, first, correspond to a real need (reality), second, are appropriate to achieving the objective in question (appropriateness) and, third, are necessary to that end (proportionality). According to those authorities, the Court applies that test more strictly and systematically in relation to indirect discrimination based on nationality than in relation to the matters subject, inter alia, to Directive 79/7. See, among others, Barnard, C. and Hepple, B., \u2018Indirect Discrimination: Interpreting Seymour-Smith\u2019, Cambridge Law Journal, 58(2), 1999, pp. 399-412, especially pp. 409-412: \u2018The real problem is that while the Court of Justice is capable of pronouncing on questions of formal equality, it lacks access to the statistical and social science advice which is needed to assess arguments about disparate impact and objective justification\u2019; Bell, M. and Waddington, L., \u2018More Equal than Others: Distinguishing European Union Equality Directives\u2019, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 38, 2001, pp. 587-611, especially p. 593; and Vielle, P. and Wuiame, N., op. cit., p. 22. On the importance of applying that test strictly in the context of discrimination on grounds of sex, see Mulder, J., Indirect sex discrimination in employment. Theoretical analysis and reflections on the CJEU case-law and national application of the concept of indirect sex discrimination, European network of legal experts in gender equality and , European Commission, Brussels, 2020, p. 130."], "id": "df6c2bba-cfc7-42ed-b61a-e09e245947cd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Here, the General Court ascertains whether the situation of a deceased official who was in a stable, long-term informal union and who financially supported his or her partner with his or her income, is comparable to that of a deceased official who was married, with no mention of registered partners who do not have access to marriage although they are mentioned in paragraph 32 of the judgment, even though the appellant compares, in particular, legally recognised unions and de facto unions in support of his allegation of a breach of the principle of ."], "id": "43e7c31a-c77b-4300-b4b1-e4419c7cdb91", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Polluter pays principle \u2014 Directive 2000/60/EC \u2014 Article 9(1) \u2014 Recovery of the costs of water services \u2014 Common rules for the internal market in electricity \u2014 Directive 2009/72/EC \u2014 Article 3(1) \u2014 Principle of \u2014 Article 107(1) TFEU \u2014 State aid \u2014 Tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity \u2014 Tax imposed only on hydroelectricity producers operating on inter-communities river basins)"], "id": "3ab01990-72ca-4976-83d3-0bb68f7e7f86", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Article 63 of the Financial Regulation states that \u2018where the Commission implements the budget under shared management, tasks relating to budget implementation shall be delegated to Member States. The Commission and Member States shall respect the principles of sound financial management, transparency and and shall ensure the visibility of the Union action when they manage Union funds. To that end, the Commission and Member States shall fulfil their respective control and audit obligations and assume the resulting responsibilities laid down in this Regulation. Complementary provisions shall be laid down in sector-specific rules\u2019."], "id": "27b64621-353d-4d05-a172-fec856612fa1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission submits that the rationale for compensating for net costs is to restore competitive fairness between the undertakings concerned, so that, in the present case, compliance with the principle of required that only the turnover of operators present on the telecommunications market in Portugal when the net costs were incurred should be taken into account. The extraordinary contribution applied to all operators present on the market between 2013 and 2015, including those which were absent from it or present in another form between 2007 and 2013. More specifically, the Commission states that significant changes took place in the telecommunications market in Portugal, particularly as a result of concentrations and conversions of undertakings. For those reasons, the Commission argues that the undertakings concerned, in their new form, were discriminated against because they were required to pay a contribution calculated on the basis of their turnover in respect of years that were not the years to which the net costs related."], "id": "62565f24-4b83-4a5c-98b6-2881697bc320", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["193 The preamble to the Charter states, inter alia, that the European Union is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law and recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter. Articles 6, 10 to 13, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 23 of the Charter define the scope of the values of human dignity, freedom, equality, respect for human rights, and equality between women and men, contained in Article 2 TEU. Article 47 of the Charter and Article 19 TEU guarantee, inter alia, the right to an effective remedy and the right to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, as regards the protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law."], "id": "d037302f-5b63-46b3-8e6c-d1b636b8f26d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In support of that application, Vialto raised two pleas relating to the unlawfulness of OLAF\u2019s conduct, alleging, first, an infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/96 and, second, a breach of the right to sound administration, of the principle of , of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In addition, Vialto submitted a complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the Commission\u2019s conduct, alleging infringement of the right to be heard."], "id": "b96e8a9f-1f50-4178-9cb0-a28dcee3f899", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In his second plea, which can also be divided into two parts, the applicant submits that the principle of equality and precluded his entitlement to the expatriation allowance from being reassessed in the light of the requirements prescribed by Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. In the first part, he claims that he was treated as if he had had Belgian nationality during the 10 years preceding his entering the service, whereas he was a United Kingdom national during that time. In the second part, he states that, in the circumstances of the present case, application of that provision affected officials with United Kingdom nationality more than all others."], "id": "78eeebbd-f40f-4e04-a57c-fb012105aa8a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC (OJ 2004 L 52, p. 50), of Article 107(1) TFEU and of the principles of equal treatment and ."], "id": "69437378-4f74-44b2-ae99-628cbe81bdd0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that the MiFID, in particular Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 thereof, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non\u2011discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a temporary prohibition on exercising the activity of financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services falls neither within the scope of that directive, nor that of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU or that of the principles of non\u2011discrimination and proportionality. In such circumstances, Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 of that directive, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of and proportionality do not preclude such a prohibition."], "id": "eb0536c0-02cf-404f-98dc-e5798e4eb051", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 120) (\u2018the MiFID\u2019), in particular Articles 8, 23 and 51 thereof, and the principles and provisions of the Treaties with regard to , proportionality, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment."], "id": "829310fb-17d0-4621-8215-aeb566c9d1d4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["It is common ground that, in the two judgments under appeal, the General Court carried out a limited review of legality on the ground that the setting of the conditions and detailed rules for the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and travelling time falls within an area of legislation in which the legislature enjoys a broad discretion. In such an area, the General Court held that it was required merely to ascertain, as regards observance of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of , whether the institution concerned had applied a distinction which was arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate, and, as regards the principle of proportionality, whether the measure adopted was manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objective pursued by the rules."], "id": "1515104a-927b-43cc-8b55-37fc39a621db", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["29. The appellant in the main proceedings, the Republic of Poland and the Portuguese Republic, albeit with slightly different reasoning, propose that the question referred should be answered in the affirmative: conduct such as that adopted by the employer in the present case constitutes, in their view, discrimination prohibited by Directive 2000/78. The respondent in the main proceedings and the European Commission, on the other hand, propose that the question should be answered in the negative, on the ground that the situation under examination does not come within the scope of Directive 2000/78. B. The general principles of equal treatment and and the purpose of Directive 2000/78"], "id": "ab23523d-585c-400a-ba18-7d186af5a93a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["8. Recital 69 is worded as follows: \u2018Contracts should be awarded on the basis of objective criteria which ensure compliance with the principles of transparency, and equal treatment and which guarantee that tenders are assessed in a transparent and objective manner under conditions of effective competition. As a result, it is appropriate to allow the application of two award criteria only: \u201cthe lowest price\u201d and \u201cthe most economically advantageous tender\u201d.\u2019"], "id": "2ad77a72-4d24-47ab-a508-a5b58084ee35", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the principle of , which forms an integral part of the general principles of EU law, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that that principle must be observed by any national legislation which falls within the scope of EU law or which implements EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 November 2019, UNESA and Others, C\u201180/18 to C\u201183/18, EU:C:2019:934, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "68bee9ee-c6de-4bbf-acb5-c851071d2bd8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["When a universal service obligation represents an unfair burden on an undertaking, it is appropriate to allow Member States to establish mechanisms for efficiently recovering net costs. Recovery via public funds constitutes one method of recovering the net costs of universal service obligations. It is also reasonable for established net costs to be recovered from all users in a transparent fashion by means of levies on undertakings. Member States should be able to finance the net costs of different elements of universal service through different mechanisms, and/or to finance the net costs of some or all elements from either of the mechanisms or a combination of both. In the case of cost recovery by means of levies on undertakings, Member States should ensure that the method of allocation amongst them is based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and is in accordance with the principle of proportionality. This principle does not prevent Member States from exempting new entrants which have not yet achieved any significant market presence. Any funding mechanism should ensure that market participants only contribute to the financing of universal service obligations and not to other activities which are not directly linked to the provision of the universal service obligations. Recovery mechanisms should in all cases respect the principles of Community law, and in particular in the case of sharing mechanisms those of and proportionality. Any funding mechanism should ensure that users in one Member State do not contribute to universal service costs in another Member State, for example when making calls from one Member State to another."], "id": "d7e67620-60ab-48f6-b98b-82167dbfed83", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, it is important to note that the fundamental principles of EU law, such as equal treatment and transparency, are applicable to the conclusion of a framework agreement; this follows from the first subparagraph of Article 33(1) of Directive 2014/24. Not only the principles of equal treatment and , but also the principle of transparency that stems from them imply that all the conditions and detailed rules of the award procedure must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner in the contract notice or tender specifications so that, first, all reasonably informed tenderers exercising ordinary care can understand their exact significance and interpret them in the same way and, second, the contracting authority is able to ascertain whether the tenders submitted satisfy the criteria applying to the contract in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2018, Autorit\u00e0 Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato \u2013 Antitrust and Coopservice, C\u2011216/17, EU:C:2018:1034, paragraph 63)."], "id": "1daea4e6-0eff-4db3-ba68-f2a0742ce38c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, the answer to part (a) of the third question is that Article 12(1) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law whereby a Member State imposes a requirement that the conclusion of an in-house transaction should be subject, inter alia, to the condition that public procurement fails to ensure that the quality of the services performed, their availability or their continuity can be guaranteed, provided that the choice made in favour of one means of providing services in particular, made at a stage prior to that of public procurement, has due regard to the principles of equal treatment, , mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency."], "id": "3fbee91a-b29b-4114-9ada-b310a37d6c04", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["As an interested party and in order to safeguard its procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, Tempus puts forward two pleas in law in support of its action, alleging (i) infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, infringement of the principles of , proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations, as well as incorrect assessment of the facts, and (ii) a failure to state reasons."], "id": "8242b20e-4904-4647-b302-5d3a13097145", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Concerning the objectives pursued by the third condition referred to in Article 132(1)(b) of the VAT Directive, it seems clear that such an objective is to prevent private establishments from offering VAT-exempt services without having to bear the same social obligations of their public law counterparts. This is perhaps just another way of referring to the public service obligations of a social nature imposed on public hospitals and other medical establishments. That condition therefore givesparticular expression to the principles of and of fiscal neutrality as between private bodies and public bodies, especially since, on the one hand, hospital and medical care and closely related activities undertaken by the latter are always exempted and, on the other hand, the former are not necessarily subject to the same social public service obligations."], "id": "e682f2ee-5692-41dd-a37c-3e46a5abba69", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted that a finding that the principle of has been breached as a result of different situations being treated in the same way presupposes that the situations concerned are not comparable, having regard to all the elements which characterise them, and those elements are to be determined and assessed in the light of the subject matter and purpose of the EU act in question, taking into consideration, moreover, the principles and objectives of the field to which the act in question relates (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 June 2014, Spain v Commission, T\u2011260/11, EU:T:2014:555, paragraph 93)."], "id": "af66a02c-a168-4d4b-8e0a-f581bf8eae83", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["It is not comprehensible why those regulations and guidelines are not applicable in the present instance, in the light of the principles of equal treatment and . That indeterminateness prevents the proportionality of the aid from being assessed correctly and, since the original budget cannot be determined, also does not allow compliance, if that budget increases, with the obligation to give fresh notification in accordance with Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9), read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1), under which a 20% increase in the original budget approved by the Commission results in an alteration to the aid. The General Court\u2019s conclusion, in paragraph 361 of the judgment under appeal, that any grant of further State aid is not covered by the decision at issue is therefore incorrect."], "id": "cbaa36c7-cad3-43f1-94ab-91c7497c0292", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Likewise, it follows from the Court\u2019s case-law that a national of a Member State, who by virtue of that fact has Union citizenship, and who is lawfully residing in the territory of another Member State, falls within the scope of EU law. Accordingly, by virtue of having Union citizenship, a national of a Member State residing in another Member State is entitled to rely on Article 21(1) TFEU and falls within the scope of the Treaties, within the meaning of Article 18 TFEU, which sets out the principle of on grounds of nationality (judgment of 17 December 2020, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Extradition to Ukraine), C\u2011398/19, EU:C:2020:1032, paragraphs 29 and 30 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "79c073c5-e9d6-4f02-9f14-5802b9f6250a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the foregoing considerations that the principle of , as provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation establishing taxes on the production and storage of nuclear fuel and waste, such as the taxes on nuclear energy at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which apply only to electricity-generating undertakings using nuclear energy and the main objective of which is not to protect the environment but to increase the amount of revenue for the electricity financial system."], "id": "77953561-622a-4506-a2c7-3da922c34346", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In support of his action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging, first, infringement of the obligation to state reasons, secondly, infringement of the principles of proportionality and sound administration and of the rights of the defence, the right to be heard and Article 41 of the Charter, thirdly, infringement of the right to sound administration and, fourthly, infringement of Regulation No 1 and the principles of equal treatment and . The Court considers that it is appropriate to rearrange those pleas in order to examine in turn the complaints alleging, first, infringement of the obligation to state reasons, secondly, infringement of the right to be heard, of the rights of the defence and of Article 41 of the Charter, thirdly, infringement of the principles of sound administration and proportionality and, fourthly, infringement of the EU rules on the use of languages and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination."], "id": "e7281e18-1ef3-4797-a5fe-3f15bdeec11f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In the case in the main proceedings, it follows from the answer of the referring court to the request for information made by the Court that CG does not have sufficient resources. Accordingly, such a person is likely to become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom and cannot therefore rely on the principle of laid down in Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38."], "id": "78bd5475-1604-4088-aa19-b75cc743f238", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, where a given situation falls within the scope of the framework agreement, it is necessary to examine whether, in the light of the principle of , implemented and put into effect by Clause 4(1) of that framework agreement, the employment conditions of fixed-term workers are less favourable than those of comparable permanent workers. That clause provides that the only difference in treatment which is prohibited is the difference in treatment between fixed-term workers and comparable permanent workers, solely because they are employed for a fixed term, and only in respect of employment conditions, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds."], "id": "49fa120b-9174-431c-80af-df6f659ac304", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In the third place, the referring court raises the question whether Law No 235/2012 is compatible with the requirement of transparency, the principle of and the principle of equality of access for EU electricity undertakings to national consumers, which are referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2009/72. In that regard, that court states that it is impossible to determine whether the special levy allows the objective pursued by Law No 235/2012 to be attained and whether its indefinite application is necessary to that end. Furthermore, that court raises the question whether that law disregards the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as domestic regulated entities are taxed on a broader base as compared with foreign regulated entities."], "id": "19cde78a-bb89-4129-a9ed-7919a5803c8c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Do the principles of equal treatment and enshrined in Clause 4 of [the Framework Agreement] on employment conditions preclude the legal provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 10 of [Legislative Decree No 23/2015] which, with regard to collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, provide for a dual and differentiated system of protection whereby, in the same procedure, appropriate, effective and dissuasive protection is provided in respect of employment relationships of indefinite duration created prior to 7 March 2015 \u2013 for which reinstatement and the payment of employer\u2019s contributions are envisaged as possible remedies \u2013 yet limited compensation only, between maximum and minimum amounts, is offered in respect of fixed-term employment relationships having the same length of service, in that they were created prior to that date but converted to an open-ended contract after 7 March 2015, which is a less effective and dissuasive form of protection?"], "id": "a045e882-501b-4826-8d9e-b858f0b9ee8e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 30 to 34 of the present judgment, the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU can apply to that dispute only where (i) that dispute relates to a situation which falls within the scope of application of EU law and (ii) that situation does not fall within the scope of a specific rule on laid down by the FEU Treaty."], "id": "3be09f0a-1d97-4bbd-880e-43653b5d1dc8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Under this heading, the Republic of Austria relies on two points First, it contends that the aid elements have \u2018not been sufficiently determined\u2019 in the decision at issue. In this context, the Republic of Austria argues that that failure amounts to an infringement of Commission Guidelines and Regulations concerning State aid rules that should have been applied in the present case according to the principles of equal treatment and . The Republic of Austria claims that the insufficient determination of aid elements in any case renders it impossible to carry out the correct proportionality assessment and that the aids in case of a shutdown will invariably lead to an over-compensation once they exceed an amount payable in case of an expropriation."], "id": "44f2fb18-cc64-4b93-9bd4-aa8670f3afa1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, any discrimination he may have suffered in breach of Article 18 TFEU falls within the scope of application of the Treaties by virtue of Article 49 TFEU. The principle of on the basis of nationality in Article 18 TFEU is given specific expression with respect to freedom of establishment by Article 49 TFEU. The Court need only therefore, rule with respect to Article 49, read together with Article 165 TFEU, given that Article 18 TFEU applies independently only to situations governed by EU law in respect of which the TFEU lays down no specific prohibitions on discrimination. For reasons that I will further explain at points 97 to 110 below, the main proceedings do not present an occasion on which to consider taking the significant constitutional step of expanding its case-law on Article 21 TFEU and the component elements of European citizenship to the horizontal context of a dispute between private parties, which would thereby oblige non-State actors to comply with them."], "id": "8dc4df94-c883-4168-b602-ce3fb2e4f9e8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["The Portuguese Government and the Regional Government of Navarre have doubts as to whether fixed-term contract staff are comparable to public officials as permanent workers. They rely on the Court\u2019s judgment in P\u00e9rez L\u00f3pez, according to which any difference in treatment which is not based on the fixed-term or permanent nature of the employment relationship, but on whether it is statutory or contractual, is not covered by the principle of established by the Framework Agreement. However, this fails to acknowledge that the finding relates to \u2018any difference in treatment between specific categories of fixed-term workers\u2019. The present case concerns a difference in treatment between fixed-term contract staff and permanent public officials."], "id": "05f9c3a5-1452-4eb8-8447-2c0d7755bef0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In so far as it allows a derogation from the principle of , Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of recital 23 thereof, which refers to \u2018very limited circumstances\u2019 in which such a difference of treatment may be justified, must be interpreted strictly (judgment of 15 July 2021, Tartu Vangla, C\u2011795/19, EU:C:2021:606, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "2a7fe4ed-e177-4fe8-bbf0-492ac736ec9f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["It is not for this Opinion to provide an answer to this fundamental dispute. Suffice it to say that, clearly, in a number of instances, \u2018the market\u2019 has failed in \u2018horizontal\u2019 situations between two private parties, which is why the EU legislature has begun to take action and has curtailed private autonomy. A prime example in this area is the regulation of roaming charges in the EU. Here, indeed, the EU legislature intervened in the relationship between individuals \u2013 who find themselves in an asymmetric relationship: phone companies on the one hand, consumers on the other \u2013 and directly applied classical internal market instruments such as the principle of to horizontal situations."], "id": "692493f7-76ab-445d-8d1d-333bd670a050", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Is the principle of on grounds of ethnic origin in accordance with Article 21 of the [Charter] to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 6(9) and (11) of the o\u00f6WFG, which allows EU citizens, EEA nationals and family members within the meaning of [Directive 2004/38] to receive a social benefit (housing assistance in accordance with the o\u00f6WFG) without proof of language proficiency, while requiring third-country nationals (including those with long-term resident status within the meaning of [Directive 2003/109]) to provide particular proof of a basic command of German?\u2019"], "id": "cacb6e0e-ce19-4889-a75f-abcd124ff63d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recital 14 of Directive 1999/70 states: \u2018The signatory parties wished to conclude a framework agreement on fixed-term work setting out the general principles and minimum requirements for fixed-term employment contracts and employment relationships; they have demonstrated their desire to improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of , and to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships\u2019. The framework agreement"], "id": "d94946ab-13c5-4b8a-b32c-f14c84496af8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Do the [EU] principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the [FEU Treaty], as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, , mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to in Directive [2014/24], preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of [Article 95(10) and Article 83(9) of the Code of Public Contracts], according to which the failure to list the labour costs separately in the financial tender in a procedure for the award of public services inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned without the possibility of supplementing or amending its tendering documentation [\u2018soccorso istruttorio\u2019], even where the obligation to list those costs separately was not set out in the tender documents, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question actually took into account the minimum labour costs, in accordance, moreover, with a declaration for that purpose made by the tenderer?\u2019"], "id": "06c5fd9f-ae2b-4f04-bf53-09b50025955f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["45 It is nevertheless for the Member State to ensure that any application for an operating permit is subject to the procedures and requirements imposed by Article 3 of Directive 94/22, without prejudice to the derogation provided for in paragraph 4 of that article, and that, in that connection, the requirements of transparency and are observed, since those principles are of particular importance for attaining the objective, pursued by the public procurement rules, of giving equal access to the market to all interested entities, as the Advocate General noted in point 51 of his Opinion."], "id": "920536ca-eaf6-4d83-bd87-1bc2ce85e54e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["EB also argues that, by not allowing researchers recruited on fixed-term contracts, who, like himself, have obtained the academic qualifications required for appointment to the post of \u2018associate professor\u2019, to undergo the assessment with a view to appointment to an associate professorship, Article 24(3) of Law No 240/2010 is contrary to the principle of set out in Clause 4 of the framework agreement."], "id": "d5f87fbd-45f9-40bb-b6d5-9ba9abcfc4c3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, see Martin, D., \u2018Article 24 \u2013 \u00c9galit\u00e9 de traitement\u2019, Directive 2004/38 relative au droit de s\u00e9jour des citoyens de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne et des membres de leur famille, Bruylant, Brussels, 2020, pp. 373-396, especially. p. 380, paragraph 16, where the author asks, \u2018since the European legislature did not intend, in Article 24 of the directive, to place restrictions on the right to established in paragraph 1, other than those set out in paragraph 2, was the Court of Justice still entitled to interpret paragraph 1 as implicitly including a condition of integration?\u2019"], "id": "32316db2-d2c0-4426-8338-e8dec280b6ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, assuming that it can be concluded that such members of the teaching staff are employed under a contract of indefinite duration, it is appropriate to examine whether they are \u2018comparable\u2019 permanent workers, within the meaning of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement. In that regard, it is important to bear in mind that according to settled case-law the principle of , of which that provision is a specific expression, requires that comparable situations should not be treated differently and that different situations should not be treated alike, unless such treatment is objectively justified (judgment of 21 November 2018, de Diego Porras, C\u2011619/17, EU:C:2018:936, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e59f404b-1b7f-4eb7-bbb3-e1b159b6acdb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["The first plea consists, in essence, of four parts, the first alleging that the aid scheme infringes the principle of , the second, that it is neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve the objective assigned to it, the third, that it restricts the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, and the fourth, that the resulting restriction is unjustified."], "id": "6e6aa3ee-406c-4139-b91d-d3bc23495039", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In those circumstances, it must be held that the applicant has failed to show either that the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion in setting the amount of the fines or that it infringed the principles of and equal treatment in setting the reference year for the determination of the amount of sales to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the basic amount of the fines."], "id": "d092e353-3f67-4bbd-9e76-0d02900b0393", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["47. Having thus clarified, in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law, the relationship between the general principles of equal treatment and and the objectives of Directive 2000/78 and the extent of the directive\u2019s scope, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of a legal situation of the type at issue in the present case in order to determine whether it involves discrimination prohibited by that directive. D. Assessment of discrimination: comparison, identification of the disadvantage and (possible) justification"], "id": "dc22330a-428c-417b-b6c6-5b2862268bcb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["57. In that regard, the Republic of Austria notes that, while an amendment to Regulation No 883/2004 was indeed envisaged, that was not the case for Regulation No 492/2011. It infers from this that Article 7 of that regulation \u2013 like Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 \u2013 does not contain a principle of going beyond that which is enshrined in primary law."], "id": "8ef7045a-f3fb-46de-8d9c-ce9c6102877a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Directive 2009/72 and, in particular, Article 3(1) to (3) and (10) thereof and the principle of must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that establishes a special levy on the revenue, with respect to activities performed both nationally and abroad, of undertakings operating, on the basis of an authorisation issued by a public authority, in various regulated activity sectors, including undertakings that hold an authorisation for supplying electricity issued by the competent national regulatory authority."], "id": "4ed77af0-4b8a-41ca-abfb-ec49d27c37fb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, , transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and \u2013 where deemed applicable \u2013 Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, which, under Article 21(3) and (4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provides that \u201cthe Customs and Monopolies Agency shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018\u201d,taking into account that:"], "id": "29c01f12-5e83-41c7-beac-fb2505caf881", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018The award of contracts concluded in the Member States on behalf of the State, regional or local authorities and other bodies governed by public law entities, is subject to the respect of the principles of the Treaty and in particular to the principle of freedom of movement of goods, the principle of freedom of establishment and the principle of freedom to provide services and to the principles deriving therefrom, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of , the principle of mutual recognition, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency. However, for public contracts above a certain value, it is advisable to draw up provisions of Community coordination of national procedures for the award of such contracts which are based on these principles so as to ensure the effects of them and to guarantee the opening up of public procurement to competition. These coordinating provisions should therefore be interpreted in accordance with both the aforementioned rules and principles and other rules of the Treaty.\u2019"], "id": "92afc4b4-8358-4045-9a75-b2d62f10b92f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["By both questions, the referring court invites the Court to clarify, in essence, what are the criteria under which the principle ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter, applies. Those questions are raised in the context of two sets of proceedings. The first, now concluded, concerned the sectoral regulation of postal services and a fine, which was later annulled, imposed on bpost by the IBPT for failure to respect the obligation of (\u2018sectoral proceedings\u2019). The second set of proceedings concern competition law. In that case, a fine was imposed on bpost by the Belgian Competition Authority for an abuse of a dominant position (\u2018competition proceedings\u2019)."], "id": "22b463c2-2cd6-43bb-b1d6-15e8a8c0459e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Laboratory Caracciolo brought an appeal against that judgment before the referring court. It argued that conferring such competence on Accredia infringed Article 56 TFEU relating to the freedom to provide services and Article 102 TFEU concerning the principle of free competition, as well as the principles of equality and , enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)."], "id": "46c2f5d3-4c51-4925-aaca-502b57a617ed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["24 The referring court also raises the question of the interaction between Regulation No 883/2004 and Directive 2004/38 in the light of the case-law resulting from the judgment of 19 September 2013, Brey (C\u2011140/12, EU:C:2013:565). In that context, it seeks guidance on the interpretation of the principle of , as given specific expression in particular in Article 4 of that regulation and Article 24(1) of that directive. In its view, the difference in treatment between, on the one hand, an economically inactive Union citizen, such as A, and, on the other hand, Latvian nationals and Union citizens who are economically active could be disproportionate to the legitimate objective of protecting the public finances of the Republic of Latvia. It is necessary to determine whether, having regard to the individual circumstances characterising A\u2019s particular situation, the Latvian authorities should have carried out an overall assessment of the burden which the grant to A of access to the system of medical care financed by the State would in fact represent for the national social assistance system as a whole. The fact that A has close personal links with Latvia could mean that it was not permissible to refuse him access automatically."], "id": "ec174a32-d76a-427d-832e-82a7b2cb9162", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["239 Lastly, the assessments of the Commission and the Council are subject to the procedural requirements specified in Article 6(1) to (9) of the contested regulation. Those requirements imply in particular, as stated in recital 26 of that regulation, that the Commission must follow an evidence-based approach and respect the principles of objectivity, and equal treatment of Member States before the Treaties when it conducts proceedings under that provision. As regards the identification and assessment of breaches of the principles of the rule of law, those requirements must be understood in the light of recital 16 of that regulation, according to which that assessment must be objective, impartial and fair."], "id": "ff303a38-9598-4c9a-a9f4-02b5cc4b2325", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Urgent preliminary ruling procedure \u2014 EEA Agreement \u2014 \u2014 Article 36 \u2014 Freedom to provide services \u2014 Scope \u2014 Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis \u2014 Agreement on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway \u2014 Extradition to a third State of an Icelandic national \u2014 Protection of a Member State\u2019s nationals against extradition \u2014 No equivalent protection for nationals of another State \u2014 Icelandic national who was granted asylum under national law before acquiring Icelandic citizenship \u2014 Restriction of freedom of movement \u2014 Justification based on the prevention of impunity \u2014 Proportionality \u2014 Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)"], "id": "5c878f42-621c-40d5-9b84-6144de5af65b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["The freedom of the Member States as to the choice of the management method that they judge to be most appropriate for the performance of works or the provision of services cannot however be unlimited. That freedom must, on the contrary, be exercised with due regard to the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equal treatment, , mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency (see, by analogy, judgments of 9 July 1987, CEI and Bellini, 27/86 to 29/86, EU:C:1987:355, paragraph 15; of 7 December 2000, Telaustria and Telefonadress, C\u2011324/98, EU:C:2000:669, paragraph 60; and of 10 September 2009, Sea, C\u2011573/07, EU:C:2009:532, paragraph 38)."], "id": "e5a79909-a4eb-4ce2-8aa1-e4d1cb713bb5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["LB also brought an administrative appeal against the decision of 4 December 2017. Following the dismissal of that action, LB brought an action before the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Zaragoza (Administrative Court No 4, Zaragoza, Spain) seeking the annulment of both the decision of 4 December 2017 and the decision confirming that decision. In support of her action, LB claimed, in essence, that those decisions were, inter alia, contrary to the principles of equality and , as guaranteed by clause 4 of the framework agreement."], "id": "820dcb16-c7fe-479a-adf1-f12acb4811a4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted that, when it lays down rules relating to matters concerning the arrangements applicable to the staff it employs, the ECB enjoys broad autonomy on account of its functional independence (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 October 2002, Pflugradt v ECB, T\u2011178/00 and T\u2011341/00, EU:T:2002:253, paragraph 48). In addition, the institutions have broad discretion in determining what the interests of the service are, regardless of the examination in the context of which, or the decision for which, those interests are to be taken into account (see judgment of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T\u201123/17, not published, EU:T:2018:271, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited). In such a case, the principle of or equal treatment would be disregarded only if the measure in question entailed a difference of treatment which was arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate in relation to the purpose of that measure (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2010, Gualtieri v Commission, C\u2011485/08 P, EU:C:2010:188, paragraph 72)."], "id": "1cd17038-9194-4f5f-8119-7a15a9cf6601", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["The award of contracts concluded in the Member States on behalf of the State, regional or local authorities and other bodies governed by public law entities, is subject to the respect of the principles of the Treaty and in particular to the principle of freedom of movement of goods, the principle of freedom of establishment and the principle of freedom to provide services and to the principles deriving therefrom, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of , the principle of mutual recognition, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency. However, for public contracts above a certain value, it is advisable to draw up provisions of Community coordination of national procedures for the award of such contracts which are based on these principles so as to ensure the effects of them and to guarantee the opening-up of public procurement to competition. These coordinating provisions should therefore be interpreted in accordance with both the aforementioned rules and principles and other rules of the Treaty."], "id": "4e940d9c-4bfc-43eb-920b-a9265a695b08", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["117. Second, according to Article 76(1) of that directive, even under the simplified regime, Member States must observe, inter alia, the principle of equality of economic operators. It should be recalled that Directive 2014/24 seeks to ensure freedom of establishment, as well as the principles stemming from the fundamental freedoms, such as equal treatment, , mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. (108)"], "id": "0b6f0e39-5a0a-4408-845f-3ec07c42ad19", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Social policy \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Articles 1, 2 and 3 \u2013 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2013 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2013 Clause 4 \u2013 Principle of \u2013 Measure taken by a university pursuant to national law \u2013 Retention of tenured lecturer status beyond the statutory retirement age \u2013 Possibility restricted to lecturers with doctoral supervisor status \u2013 Lecturers who do not have this status \u2013 Fixed-term employment contracts \u2013 Lower remuneration than for tenured lecturers)"], "id": "1892e43a-1bea-429d-ad71-7861579d7f52", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["By their sixteenth plea, the applicants argue that the decision of 17 July 2018 infringes the principle of equal treatment and in that it does not contain any comparative analysis between the situation of the second applicant, in terms of AML/CFT, and that of other comparable banks, either in Estonia or elsewhere. They assert that that decision does not contain any relevant information from the FSA in that regard and that the FSA chose to make an example of the second applicant, not because of the seriousness of its breaches, but because of its small size, its financial strength, which facilitated liquidation, and the fact that it was owned by foreigners, who would have found it more difficult to oppose the action taken."], "id": "bf672e4a-5a11-4095-8493-bf1674d828d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Do the principles of freedom of establishment, , equal treatment, the protection of competition and freedom of movement for workers, referred to in Articles 45, 49 to 56 and 106 TFEU and in Articles 15 and 16 of the [Charter], and the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness inherent in those principles, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991, which, in the event of the transfer of ownership of a municipal pharmacy, confers a right of pre-emption on the employees of the pharmacy in question?\u2019"], "id": "950befee-2fee-4452-8589-dee849547946", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["37. As already indicated, it is apparent from the Court\u2019s case-law that, in view of the wording of Article 13 EC (now Article 19 TFEU), from which Directive 2000/78 arises, the scope of the latter cannot be extended by analogy, including by reference to the general principle of , beyond the grounds of discrimination listed exhaustively in Article 1 of that directive. (13)"], "id": "65aff682-1354-4fd4-adf0-6f0e932a38ed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Regarding, more specifically, discrimination on grounds of age, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that, where they adopt measures which fall within the scope of Directive 2000/78, which gives specific expression, in the domain of employment and occupation, to the principle of on grounds of age, Member States must respect the directive (judgment of 21 January 2015, Felber, C\u2011529/13, EU:C:2015:20, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited). Likewise, Member States must, when they adopt measures which fall within the scope of Directive 2006/54, which gives specific expression, in that domain, to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, respect that directive."], "id": "c63208b3-69cd-43ae-871e-d53f5b7c41fc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Citizenship of the Union \u2013 National of a Member State without an activity residing in the territory of another Member State on the basis of national law \u2013 The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU \u2013 based on nationality \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 7 \u2013 Conditions for obtaining a right of residence for more than three months \u2013 Article 24 \u2013 Social assistance \u2013 Concept \u2013 Equal treatment \u2013 Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland \u2013 Transition period \u2013 National provision excluding Union citizens with a right of residence for a fixed period under national law from social assistance \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Articles 1, 7 and 24)"], "id": "16c3853a-a577-4bab-b6c3-2d7350092078", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["136 As regards the condition laid down in Article 4(1) of the contested regulation relating to the existence of \u2018breaches of the principles of the rule of law\u2019, Article 2(a) of the contested regulation states that the concept of \u2018the rule of law\u2019 is to be understood, for the purposes of that regulation, as the \u2018Union value enshrined in Article 2 TEU\u2019 and that that concept includes the principles of legality, legal certainty, prohibition of arbitrariness of the executive powers, effective judicial protection, separation of powers and and equality before the law. That provision states, however, that the concept of \u2018the rule of law\u2019, as defined for the purposes of the application of the contested regulation, \u2018shall be understood having regard to the other Union values and principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU\u2019. It follows that respect for those values and principles \u2013 in so far as they form part of the very definition of the value of \u2018the rule of law\u2019 contained in Article 2 TEU or, as is apparent from the second sentence of that article, are closely linked to a society that respects the rule of law \u2013 may be required in the context of a horizontal conditionality mechanism such as that established by the contested regulation."], "id": "834121e8-d6ff-4f6d-8266-dbe72be6c3ef", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["14. In its application, the appellant argued that the stated objectives of the contested measure, namely to extend the application of the provisions of the Gas Directive to offshore import pipelines in order to improve the functioning of the internal market while allowing for derogation so as to protect existing investments, are not in fact its actual purpose. According to the appellant, the contested measure was adopted for the purposes of discouraging and placing at a disadvantage the exploitation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. As such, the lawfulness of that measure was, in the appellant\u2019s view, vitiated by an infringement of the principles of , proportionality and legal certainty, by a breach of essential procedural requirements, by a misuse of power and by a failure to state reasons."], "id": "2f122a2e-4152-4a23-b5d5-a2341eacc789", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Do the provisions of [the VAT Directive] in particular Articles 167 and 168 thereof, and the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, and tax neutrality preclude, in the case in which a planned investment is subsequently abandoned, a taxable person from forfeiting the right to deduct VAT in relation to certain investment expenditure which the latter incurred with the intention of allocating that expenditure for the purpose of carrying out of a taxable transaction?"], "id": "edb86089-310f-4a03-9952-d23b409de093", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary observation, it should be noted that the purpose of Directive 2000/43, as stated in Article 1 thereof, is to lay down a framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment. That directive gives specific expression, in its field of application, to the principle of on grounds of race and ethnic origin which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter (judgment of 16 July 2015, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria, C\u201183/14, EU:C:2015:480, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "665483a3-8de9-4471-bbe8-07288bd8248d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Article 18 TFEU can be relied on \u2018in all situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of EU law\u2019. Among such \u2018situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of EU law\u2019, the Court has admitted in particular that \u2018the situation of an EU citizen who has made use of his right to move freely comes within the scope of Article 18 TFEU, which lays down the principle of on grounds of nationality\u2019."], "id": "85e061c8-98c8-4f83-9e32-fdb1f5f1586a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["100. In the light of the foregoing, I suggest that the Court declare the request for a preliminary ruling from the \u00da\u0159ad pro p\u0159\u00edstup k dopravn\u00ed infrastruktu\u0159e (Transport infrastructure access authority, Czech Republic) inadmissible. In the alternative, I propose that the reply to that request should be as follows: 1. The \u2018goods platforms\u2019 referred to in Annex I to Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area, being spaces adjacent to the side of a train which are used exclusively for loading onto, and unloading from, the train on main lines or in sidings, are a component of the railway infrastructure. 2. The infrastructure manager may change the charges for use of railway infrastructure, provided that this is justified in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/909 of 12 June 2015 on the modalities for the calculation of the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, and in accordance with the decisions or forecasts of change contained in the network statement, except where it does so in an attempt to respond to extraordinary circumstances. Where necessary, the operator of the service facility may, while still complying with the contractual obligations entered into with the railway undertakings, change the charges for access to that facility and for the supply of services, on condition that the amended charge does not exceed the cost of providing the service, plus a reasonable profit, and is consistent with the principles of transparency and . 3. An infrastructure manager classified as a State body, whatever its legal form, is bound by the directly effective provisions of Directive 2012/34. 4. Any network statement that does not comply with Directive 2012/34 may be regarded as discriminatory if it introduces measures which, in themselves, afford to some undertakings treatment which is unjustified by comparison with that afforded to others."], "id": "fea0fdc7-8610-46e4-ac7c-5dece00a82f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["\u201cthe rule of law\u201d refers to the Union value enshrined in Article 2 TEU. It includes the principles of legality implying a transparent, accountable, democratic and pluralistic law-making process; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness of the executive powers; effective judicial protection, including access to justice, by independent and impartial courts, also as regards fundamental rights; separation of powers; and and equality before the law. The rule of law shall be understood having regard to the other Union values and principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU;"], "id": "f85ab012-015f-41ad-9b68-f875d2c24210", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["See, also, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Viejobueno Ib\u00e1\u00f1ez and de la Vara Gonz\u00e1lez (C\u2011245/17, EU:C:2018:365, point 57): \u2018\u2026 it is a circular argument to say that the two categories of employee in this case are not comparable because the employment relationship of established civil servants is permanent, when the lawfulness of the early termination of the employment relationship of teachers on fixed-term contracts is the very matter at issue. Otherwise, the comparability of fixed-term workers and established civil servants in relation to dismissal would always be precluded and fall outside the scope of the Framework Agreement. This, however, would run counter to the Court\u2019s case-law, which expressly applies the principle of laid down in Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement to conditions of dismissal.\u2019"], "id": "b649b60f-b4ee-4baa-b225-1f95ef3ae05c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it is true that if it were to be considered that Capricorn was granted aid corresponding to the difference between the market price of the N\u00fcrburgring assets and the purchase price paid by Capricorn for those assets in the context of a tender process which did not meet the requirements of openness, transparency, unconditionality and , such aid would necessarily have been granted on 11 March 2014, which is the date on which those assets were awarded to Capricorn and on which the relevant sale contract was concluded."], "id": "53002541-91ab-4f0c-84eb-9c8c0317df09", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["56. In that connection, it is important to understand that, if the discretion recognised by Article 8 of Directive 2000/78 were limited only to the stage of justifying indirect discrimination, as the Court has already recognised in the judgment in WABE, and inapplicable to other elements that might influence the definition of the reference circle of persons for comparison purposes, Member States could be impeded from deciding on sensitive and legitimate aspects regarding religion and religious beliefs which, ultimately, determine the level of uniformity or diversity that they might wish to introduce \u2013 or maintain \u2013 in their societies. I do not think that the aim of Directive 2000/78, in laying down minimum requirements for the relevant rules on equal treatment in the fields of employment and occupation, is to prevent Member States making such choices. (a) The ethos underpinning on the grounds of religion and religious beliefs"], "id": "f7a2bad2-1387-4702-be48-2f96a0771688", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the [Charter], inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law?\u2019"], "id": "1a1374c6-19c2-41f1-84fc-55eda8b31fa8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["whenever universal service providers apply special tariffs, for example for services for businesses, bulk mailers or consolidators of mail from different users, they shall apply the principles of transparency and with regard both to the tariffs and to the associated conditions. The tariffs, together with the associated conditions, shall apply equally both as between different third parties and as between third parties and universal service providers supplying equivalent services. Any such tariffs shall also be available to users, in particular individual users and small and medium-sized enterprises, who post under similar conditions.\u2019"], "id": "3cc99619-af70-428f-8880-78e52cabbe29", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Directive 2014/24 may also be applicable by virtue of a direct and unconditional reference by Portuguese law to the provisions of that directive. Similarly, public procurement procedures that do not fall within the scope of that directive are nonetheless subject to the fundamental rules and general principles flowing from the FEU Treaty, in particular, the principles of equal treatment and on grounds of nationality and the resulting obligation of transparency, provided that such contracts are of certain cross-border interest (see, to that effect, order of 7 July 2016, S\u00e1 Machado & Filhos, C\u2011214/15, not published, EU:C:2016:548, paragraphs 33, 35 and 37). In that regard, the referring court may not merely submit to the Court evidence showing that certain cross-border interest cannot be ruled out but must, on the contrary, provide information capable of proving that it exists (judgment of 6 October 2016, Tecnoedi Costruzioni, C\u2011318/15, EU:C:2016:747, paragraph 22)."], "id": "899f662c-792e-441e-ad25-af3e6c55d34b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Do Article 5(1), in particular subparagraphs (a) and (f), of Delegated Regulation 2015/63, interpreted in the light of the principles referred to in that regulation, in Directive 2014/59, Regulation No 806/2014 and Article 120 TFEU, the fundamental rules of equal treatment, and proportionality laid down in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the prohibition on levying double contributions, preclude, for the purpose of calculating the contributions that are the subject of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59, the rules laid down for intragroup liabilities from also applying in the case of a \u2018de facto\u2019 group or, in any event, in the case of interconnectedness between an institution and other banks forming part of the same system?"], "id": "2eee30a8-6b2a-4595-a809-fa39f15d1eec", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["60. It will not be necessary to analyse the Italian legislation in the light of Article 18 TFEU because this applies only in the event that there are no more specific provisions that reflect the principle of . (31) This is [not] the case in the context of the free movement of goods (which includes electricity imports), since Articles 30, 34 and 110 TFEU refer specifically to the principle of non-discrimination, which Article 18 TFEU establishes generically."], "id": "266c9825-8ef6-421f-bbef-ddda9ced5070", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Under Clause 1(a) of the framework agreement, one of the objectives of that agreement is \u2018to improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination\u2019. Similarly, the third paragraph in the preamble to the framework agreement states that the agreement \u2018illustrates the willingness of the Social Partners to establish a general framework for ensuring equal treatment for fixed-term workers by protecting them against discrimination\u2019. Recital 14 to Directive 1999/70 states that the aim of the framework agreement is, in particular, to improve the quality of fixed-term work by setting out the minimum requirements in order to ensure the application of the principle of . It is that principle which Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement aims to apply to fixed-term workers in order to prevent an employer using such an employment relationship to deny those workers rights which are recognised for permanent workers . It is settled case-law that, having regard to the objectives pursued by the framework agreement, Clause 4 thereof must be understood as expressing a principle of European Union social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively."], "id": "254a8441-2aee-483f-96f8-3e5c5a0909b5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Social policy \u2014 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2014 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2014 Clause 4 \u2014 Principle of \u2014 Clause 5 \u2014 Measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships \u2014 Compensation if the employment relationship is terminated \u2014 Articles 151 and 153 TFEU \u2014 Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Applicability \u2014 Difference of treatment based on whether a public or private regime, within the meaning of national law, governs the employment relationship)"], "id": "5496dd98-6369-48c6-a47b-765ab99a0cf9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the compatibility of the tax with the principle of enshrined in Article 3 of Directive 2009/72, the referring court underlines that the tax for the use of inland waters only applies to hydroelectric power producers, excluding the power producers using a different technology. In addition, it is only imposed on producers who hold administrative concessions in inter-communities and not intra-community river basins."], "id": "f0d91a3d-4f2a-44f7-acbc-71d98da69c27", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, the financial situation of each person concerned should be examined specifically, without taking account of the social benefits claimed, in order to determine whether he or she meets the condition of having sufficient resources laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38 and whether he or she can accordingly invoke, in the host Member State, the principle of laid down in Article 24(1) of that directive in order to enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 November 2014, Dano, C\u2011333/13, EU:C:2014:2358, paragraphs 80 and 81)."], "id": "2f551585-1581-42b8-ae56-94157e4d4456", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, first, the applicant claims that the Commission\u2019s authorisation of State aid measures and decisions must never infringe other provisions of the TFEU, such as the principle of . It claims that the contested decision treats the comparable situation of airlines operating routes to and from Finland differently by favouring Finnair without any objective justification. In support of that argument, the applicant relies in particular on the Commission\u2019s practice in relation to aid measures based on Article 107(2)(b) TFEU. The applicant submits that the COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected all the airlines operating in Finland. The need to save Finnair only, to the exclusion of other airlines operating in Finland, has not been established and the aid in question goes beyond what is necessary to attain its objective. The aid in question is a measure of pure economic nationalism. The applicant adds that the earlier measures to rescue financial institutions in 2008 and the Communication from the Commission entitled \u2018The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis\u2019 illustrate the importance of the principle of non-discrimination which has been infringed in the present case."], "id": "a4178a2e-e4f7-484c-94a5-0c4bfe1ed226", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled that the principle of on grounds of age, which is a general principle of EU law, was given specific expression by Directive 2000/78 in the field of employment and occupation (judgment of 19 January 2010, K\u00fcc\u00fckdeveci, C\u2011555/07, EU:C:2010:21, paragraph 21) and that the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds, inter alia, of age is laid down in Article 21 of the Charter. Moreover, not only is Directive 2000/78 a source of inspiration in disputes concerning the staff of the EU institutions as regards determining the obligations of the competent regulatory authority with regard to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 February 2019, RK v Council, T\u201111/17, EU:T:2019:65, paragraphs 68 to 70 and the case-law cited), but it is also binding on the ECB by virtue of Article 9(c) of the Conditions of Employment."], "id": "e00a29c0-477a-4c54-a848-a0b246f2728e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["In its assessment of the appellant\u2019s second complaint alleging infringement of the principle of , in paragraphs 48, 51 and 53 of the judgment under appeal the General Court again links the surviving spouse exclusively with marital status, carrying out a test comparing the situation of a deceased official in an informal union and that of the same official \u2018who was married\u2019."], "id": "27834f0f-1712-4aa2-9f77-f0b0fe39e35c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["61 It follows that, when it is ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the general principle of on grounds of religion, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter, and the provisions of Directive 2000/78 \u2013 which implement that article and contribute to the achievement of its objectives \u2013 in proceedings involving an individual and a public administrative body, the Court examines the question in the light of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 November 2014, Vital P\u00e9rez, C\u2011416/13, EU:C:2014:2371, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "3a842971-5563-462c-b649-46b799898892", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, it follows both from the wording of clause 2(1) of the framework agreement and from the objective pursued by the framework agreement, and more specifically, by clause 4 thereof, that the principle of , for the purposes of the latter clause, applies only to all workers providing remunerated services in the context of a fixed-term employment relationship linking them with their employer."], "id": "108303e3-00c4-4842-ae67-e9ffc9cff7a6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-discrimination", "masked_sentences": ["Firstly, infringement of Regulation No 1099/2009, read in conjunction with the principle of equality and , in that Jewish and Muslim believers are being deprived of the guarantee contained in Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1099/2009 to the effect that ritual slaughter cannot be made subject to the requirement of prior stunning, and in that the contested decree, contrary to Article 26(2) of the aforementioned regulation, was allegedly not notified to the European Commission in time;"], "id": "57f3d504-6285-4503-9694-06788df479a8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["On 28 April 2017, the Commission invited Slovenia, pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, to submit its observations on the allegation that it failed to guarantee the inviolability of the archives of the ECB in carrying out the search and seizure at the premises of Banka Slovenije on 6 July 2016 and, as a result, infringed Article 343 TFEU, Article 39 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB and Articles 2 and 22 of the Protocol on the of the European Union. Moreover, the Slovenian authorities avoided constructive discussion, thus failing to comply with their duty of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU and Article 18 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union."], "id": "fdaed039-6c3b-4b10-8dd8-d507e2ec81d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It must, however, be noted that Article 42 of the Vienna Convention provides that \u2018a diplomatic agent shall not in the receiving State practise for personal profit any professional or commercial activity\u2019 and there is no provision extending the scope of that prohibition to the members of the agent\u2019s family. Consequently, unlike diplomatic agents themselves, their family members may practise a professional or commercial activity in the receiving State, subject to the laws and regulations of that State and, therefore, subject, where applicable, to any authorisations required by any foreigner of the same nationality, such as a work permit for example. However, in her capacity as a national of an EU Member State, the applicant was exempt from even that obligation. Furthermore, even if they practise a professional or commercial activity, the members of a diplomatic agent\u2019s family as a rule retain their as provided and circumscribed by Articles 29 to 36 of the Vienna Convention, which apply to them pursuant to Article 37(1) thereof. In fact, under Article 31(1)(c) of the Vienna Convention, only immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction is waived for actions relating to any professional or commercial activity. There is no advance waiver of criminal immunity."], "id": "6aba6637-1648-4aa0-8ad3-e7c5509f770d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["51 See Wouters, J. and Duquet, S., \u2018The EU and International Diplomatic Law: New Horizons?\u2019, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 7, No 1, 2012, pp. 31-49, in particular p. 44. According to those authors, \u2018the EU\u2019s diplomatic network is made subject to the Vienna Convention through specific agreements with the host country. Most states have accepted the according of to EU delegations, their staff and their property in this manner. However, the specific provisions and legal frameworks may differ according to the party concerned\u2019."], "id": "f4211b70-8e77-4408-aee7-827aa75c49b6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["By contrast, these two institutions state that, according to the general scheme of , access by the law enforcement authorities of the Member States always required, in principle, the consent of the body concerned. If the latter refused authorisation, a ruling from the Court would be required. According to its case-law, this also applied to access to the archives of the Union. However, since the Slovenian authorities neither obtained authorisation from the ECB nor referred the matter the Court, the search and seizure of the documents concerned infringed the archives of the ECB. It was therefore irrelevant whether there is any interference with the functioning or independence of the ECB."], "id": "c7aee32c-e4a2-49e8-9463-79ccf4a96aee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 83 to 86 above that the immunity laid down in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the of the European Union precludes, inter alia, that a measure of provisional detention may impede the freedom of Members of the European Parliament to travel to the place where the first sitting of the new parliamentary term is to take place, in order to complete the formalities required by the Electoral Act."], "id": "a68219e7-daf6-4b3b-9f2e-63c87f0388fb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Expedited procedure \u2013 Institutional law \u2013 Citizen of the European Union elected to the European Parliament while being held in provisional detention in the context of criminal proceedings \u2013 Article 14 TEU \u2013 Concept of \u2018Member of the European Parliament\u2019 \u2013 Article 343 TFEU \u2013 Immunities necessary for the performance of the tasks of the European Union \u2013 Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union \u2013 Article 9 \u2013 Immunities enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament \u2013 Immunity as regards travel \u2013 Immunities as regards sessions \u2013 Personal, temporal and material scope of the various immunities \u2013 Waiver of immunity by the European Parliament \u2013 Request to waive immunity from a national court \u2013 Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 Term of office \u2013 Article 8 \u2013 Electoral procedure \u2013 Article 12 \u2013 Verification of the credentials of Members of the European Parliament following the official declaration of the election results \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 39(2) \u2013 Election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot \u2013 Right to stand as a candidate at elections)"], "id": "8b19d5de-cf5f-4669-9bab-fa18d34fbcb4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It can be inferred from the interplay with Article 1 of the Protocol on the of the European Union that the documents and data carriers at issue do not fall outside the scope of protection of Article 2 in conjunction with Article 22 of the Protocol simply because they were not located on the premises of the ECB. This is because all objects located on the premises of the ECB are already protected by Article 1 in conjunction with Article 22 of the Protocol. Thus, if Article 2 of the Protocol is to retain an independent scope of application of its own, it must, in principle, also cover documents and data carriers located in places other than the premises of the ECB, in so far as they are \u2018archives of the Union\u2019."], "id": "ef3b228d-8ae8-435c-a261-8a942b9f64b0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In order to provide the referring court with a useful answer to its actual question \u2013 namely, whether Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the EU precludes the opening of the judicial inquiry in the criminal proceedings \u2013 it is necessary in what follows to assess the necessary connection, in so far as that is possible on the factual basis conveyed. Furthermore, it is necessary to address the factual conditions, the fulfilment of which the referring court has yet to verify in that connection."], "id": "bf00ce87-b8a9-4c75-8dff-40796e31a513", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Having regard to the conclusion drawn in paragraph 50 above, according to which the governor of a national central bank enjoys immunity from legal proceedings under Article 11(a) of the Protocol on as a member of an organ of the ECB pursuant to Article 22 of that protocol, the interpretation set out in paragraphs 56 to 75 above applies likewise to the case of such a governor."], "id": "81f45729-2c4b-4d69-b296-72ed41c1fa38", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the legal source of those immunities, Article 343 TFEU provides that the European Union is to enjoy in the territories of the Member States such as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union. Although that article therefore refers to that protocol as regards the determination of the conditions under which immunities are to be ensured, it nevertheless requires that the European Union and, in particular, the Members of its institutions, enjoy the immunities necessary for the performance of its tasks. It follows that those conditions, as determined by that protocol and \u2013 in so far as that protocol refers to the law of the Member States \u2013 by national legislation, must ensure that the European Parliament is fully able to perform the tasks entrusted to it."], "id": "469ac727-aecc-40dc-993a-fc1f27bd0f15", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Next, in answer to the fourth question referred, it is necessary to examine how and by whom it is to be determined in a specific case whether the acts which the accused person is alleged to have committed are covered by the immunity provided for in Article 11(a) of the Protocol on of the EU and under what conditions that immunity may be waived (see Section B)."], "id": "b681700f-7c28-49cc-b285-f2d3fd181661", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, the EU institution to which the official or other servant involved belongs is best placed to determine in which capacity he or she acted. It is even possible that it holds the documents necessary to establish the offence (order of 13 July 1990, Zwartveld and Others, C\u20112/88\u2011IMM, EU:C:1990:315). Moreover, the power which the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Protocol on expressly confers on the EU institution concerned to verify that the request for waiver of immunity addressed to it is not contrary to the interests of the Union itself confers on that institution competence to ensure that the act alleged against the official or other servant was carried out in his or her official capacity on behalf of the European Union. If the actions of the official or other servant were not carried out in his or her official capacity, the proceedings brought against him or her are a fortiori incapable of harming the interests of the European Union. It follows from the foregoing that the institution to which the person concerned belongs is competent to assess the condition referred to in paragraph 56 above."], "id": "2d518600-4228-4600-8955-44414e063066", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["However, the mere finding that the seizure in any event also affected documents that can be subsumed under the concept of \u2018archives of the ECB\u2019 does not yet give rise to an infringement of immunity. Rather, it is necessary to clarify, in a next step, what is meant by \u2018inviolability\u2019 of the archives of the ECB and under what circumstances an infringement of the Protocol on the of the European Union is to be assumed."], "id": "46aa7fd1-c61d-4205-b02c-c561cb4132ea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, it is apparent from case-law that the recognised by that protocol have a purely functional character, inasmuch as they are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the European Union. In the light of the special institutional regime of the ESCB and of the Eurosystem, Article 2 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities should apply not only to the documents held by the ECB but also to those held by the national central banks which are part of the ESCB and the Eurosystem, such as the Central Bank of Slovenia, in so far as those documents relate to the execution of the tasks of the ESCB or of the Eurosystem, irrespective of whether they originate from the ECB or the national central banks."], "id": "9fde14bd-23b3-47f1-a092-594a4867d967", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Second, it would impair the functioning and independence of the EU institutions if their activities could be examined in the light of any criteria based on the domestic law of Member States. This could possibly hinder the fulfilment of such tasks. It is for that reason that Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the EU excludes legal proceedings in the Member States in respect of official acts of EU staff."], "id": "d6af28f0-ffc1-428e-8cfb-b364e662ed63", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The governors of the central banks of the Member States fall within the scope of the Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 22, read in conjunction with Article 11(a) thereof, in so far as they perform official tasks within the framework of the European System of Central Banks or the banking union, in particular in their capacity as members of the General Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) or of the Governing Council of the ECB. In addition, if a central bank is a national competent authority within the meaning of point 2 of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, or its governor is a member of that authority under national law, he or she falls within the scope of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 22 thereof in so far as that authority performs preparatory acts in a procedure based on the ECB\u2019s exclusive decision-making power. The immunity in respect of such acts performed in an official capacity continues to exist after the end of the term of office."], "id": "c051d037-4f01-430e-9d5b-620da9455b79", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In the course of the ensuing contact between the Slovenian representative of the ECB and the Slovenian authorities responsible for the investigation, the latter took the view that a decision on any that could be applicable to some of the documents seized could be taken only after they had been viewed. The ECB\u2019s proposal to agree on a common approach for identifying the ECB\u2019s documents in order to prevent those documents from being analysed without having been released by the ECB in advance was not accepted by the Slovenian authorities, despite those authorities having expressed a willingness to cooperate in principle. The reason for this was that the Slovenian Prosecutor-General regarded the proposal as an impermissible interference in the ongoing preliminary investigation. However, a meeting between the competent prosecutor and the representative of the ECB was scheduled for 18 November 2016 with a view to discussing the details of the cooperation."], "id": "5410138c-1fa1-4671-8d80-81df775ae5de", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the Court inter alia noted, in paragraph 37 of that judgment, that \u2018the fact that the [with which Protocol No 7 is concerned] have been provided in the public interest of the European Union justifies the power given to the institutions to waive the immunity where appropriate but does not mean that these privileges and immunities are granted to the European Union exclusively and not also to its officials, to other staff and to Members of the Parliament. Therefore \u2026 Protocol [No 7] confers an individual right on the persons concerned, compliance with which is ensured by the system of remedies established by the Treaty\u2019."], "id": "2130095d-d12f-433c-87e8-f4a23d237213", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with those objectives and with the requirement referred to in paragraph 76 above, the immunity provided for in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the of the European Union serves to protect the proper functioning and independence of the European Parliament, as the Advocate General pointed out in points 92 and 94 of his Opinion, by guaranteeing that each of its Members has, after the official declaration of the election results, the ability to travel unimpeded to the first sitting of the new term, in order to comply with the procedures set out in Article 12 of the Electoral Act, and to allow the new parliament to assemble."], "id": "9328bb7a-d59b-467c-8882-dca73ea1cc6d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The protection thus afforded by the Protocol on to beneficiaries of immunity from legal proceedings is, as noted in paragraph 74 above, functional in scope and therefore relative and does not, in particular, shield them, as the case may be, against any pressure that might be deliberately exerted on them by means of abusive prosecutions for acts which are not carried out by officials or other servants of the European Union in their official capacity. However, it must be borne in mind that, under the principle of sincere cooperation, the Member States are required, under the third subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU, to facilitate the achievement of the European Union\u2019s tasks and to refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the European Union\u2019s objectives. Such pressure would be, as the Advocate General observed, in essence, in point 138 of her Opinion, capable of calling into question the functioning of the EU institutions and, therefore, of jeopardising the achievement of the objectives of the European Union."], "id": "f74c5538-8fbb-448c-b9fd-7a798a850228", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["By its application, the European Commission seeks a declaration from the Court of Justice that, by unilaterally seizing at the premises of the Banka Slovenije (Central Bank of Slovenia) documents connected to the performance of the tasks of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and of the Eurosystem and by failing to cooperate sincerely with the European Central Bank (ECB) on that matter, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 TFEU, Article 39 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 230; \u2018the Protocol on the ESCB and the ECB\u2019), Articles 2, 18 and 22 of Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 266; \u2018the Protocol on privileges and immunities\u2019) and Article 4(3) TEU."], "id": "79749f85-3c88-49c0-869b-58556297b43e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["That is why the termination of office as governor of a national central bank, which ends, pursuant to Article 10.1 of the Protocol on the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, the performance by that governor ex lege of duties as a member of an organ of the ECB, does not deprive him or her of the entitlement to immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of the Protocol on ."], "id": "0f99366c-77f1-48bb-a736-bb1307037b9e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["According to Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union (\u2018the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Protocol\u2019), officials and other servants of the EU are immune from legal proceedings in all Member States in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity. This case provides the Court with an opportunity to determine the scope of that immunity."], "id": "34d71a7b-36b6-41b5-9c6b-8e61ce9ad858", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["First, although the of the European Union have a functional character, as was recalled in paragraph 73 above, that does not mean that the institution concerned or, in an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU, the Commission, has to prove that the disclosure of certain documents entails interference with the functioning and independence of the European Union in order for it to be possible to consider unlawful the unilateral seizure of those documents by the authorities of a Member State. Such an interpretation would be manifestly contrary to both the wording and the objective of Article 2 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities, under which \u2018the archives of the Union shall be inviolable\u2019."], "id": "7ce1df15-fd11-4a40-adcb-3b39f76c8106", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, the Republic of Slovenia submits that it results from both international law and the case-law of the Court of Justice, as well as from the fundamental values of the European Union such as the principles of transparency, openness and the rule of law, that the concept of \u2018privileges and immunities\u2019, must be strictly interpreted and that, far from being of an absolute nature, the exercise of those is restricted in functional terms to the extent necessary to guarantee the functioning of the European Union and its institutions and to achieve their objectives."], "id": "4f066e09-7630-40f3-808b-cb9f5a9f6d2e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The second paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union, read in conjunction with subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that, before the opening of the first session of the Parliament after the elections, the authorities of the Member State in which a Member of the European Parliament has been elected have an obligation to refrain from taking any measure that could hinder the steps to be taken by that Member necessary for him or her effectively to take office and to suspend measures already taken, unless they have obtained a waiver of the immunity from the Parliament. That obligation only concerns measures to which the parliamentary immunity under national law relates."], "id": "5e785464-c935-4120-b52f-9b386859f75b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["However, in EU law the term \u2018archives\u2019 has been defined in a different context to that of the Protocol on , namely Article 1(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1983 L 43, p. 1), as all those documents and records of whatever type and in whatever medium which have originated in or been received by one of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies or by one of their representatives or servants in the performance of their duties, and which relate to the activities of those Communities."], "id": "e705683d-a52b-49bd-ba74-3e9ac82e5590", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["And fourth, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, the Protocol on the of the EU must not be interpreted to the effect that criminal investigations on the territory of the Member States are rendered excessively difficult, if not impossible. In other words, the functional and thus limited nature of the privileges and immunities of the Protocol is intended to ensure an appropriate balance between the interests of the EU in its independence and functioning, on the one hand, and the interest of the Member States in the effectiveness of their criminal prosecution, on the other. A comprehensive prohibition of investigations would, however, go beyond what is \u2018necessary for the performance of its tasks\u2019 within the meaning of Article 343 TFEU."], "id": "cc4acd69-292d-46d1-aa28-ce82b0fa8217", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The Public Prosecutor does not dispute that AB may enjoy such immunity where he acts as a member of the Governing Council of the ECB, but considers that, in the context of the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings, the acts of which he is accused are not linked to the performance of his duties as a member of that council, with the result that the Protocol on does not apply to AB."], "id": "b135d73e-58c2-4db0-bc61-61934e00823d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with that provision, officials and other servants of the European Union continue to enjoy immunity from legal proceedings after they have ceased to hold office. As has been concluded in paragraph 50 of the present judgment, the governor of a national central bank enjoys that immunity from legal proceedings as a member of an organ of the ECB, pursuant to Article 22 of the Protocol on . Consequently, he or she retains the benefit of that once he or she has ceased to hold the office of member of such an organ."], "id": "3edb87d3-d17d-49f9-9edb-babec8c8cece", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["(3) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that immunity relate only to immunity \u201cfrom legal proceedings\u201d as referred to in Article 11(a) of [the Protocol on the of the EU] or does it also cover the criminal prosecution, including service of the indictment and the gathering of evidence? In the event that the immunity applies to the criminal prosecution, does that fact influence whether the evidence can be used?"], "id": "1c2765d5-9d50-4367-b5a5-8f08933fdbd4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 11(a) of the Protocol on , read in conjunction with Article 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State continues to enjoy the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of that protocol after he or she has ceased to hold office."], "id": "72eaa1a4-c69d-44bd-aedc-1ef86ed34974", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The General Court there first examined the Court\u2019s decision in Humblet v Belgian State. Mr Humblet was a Belgian national employed in Luxembourg as an official of the ECSC. He was treated as having his domicile for tax purposes in Belgium (where he also maintained a residence) and where his wife received an income. Mrs Humblet\u2019s income was declared in Belgium where it was subject to tax in the name of her husband as head of the household, in accordance with national law. The Belgian authorities then changed their previous practice and required Mr Humblet also to declare the amount of his salary as an ECSC official which was exempt from taxation under the Protocol on to the ECSC Treaty (\u2018the ECSC Protocol\u2019). The national authorities issued estimated assessments against Mr Humblet for the tax years in question which he then challenged. In the light of Article 16 of the ECSC Protocol Mr Humblet considered himself to be entitled to bring the matter before the Court of Justice."], "id": "b65f7bd7-ce86-402a-8bfd-c3ad16897ec2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["First, if the intention had been to preclude any involvement of EU staff in criminal investigations, this would have been expressly prescribed in the Protocol on the of the EU. This has been provided for accordingly in respect of Members of the European Parliament in Article 8 of the Protocol, for example. They must not be subject to \u2018any form of inquiry \u2026 or legal proceedings\u2019 in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties."], "id": "2ab56b9b-8b2f-44f6-b717-7114110d47af", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["These examples of prohibited acts must, in principle, also apply to Article 2 of the Protocol on the of the European Union. It is not clear why the term \u2018inviolability\u2019 in Article 2 of the Protocol should have a meaning different from that in Article 1. In this respect, the case-law of the Court confirms that, when interpreting a provision of the Protocol, account must be taken of the wording and principles of its other provisions."], "id": "7eda9052-7598-48e8-b0cd-4cc892d4d7b6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["As already stated, the Protocol on the of the EU also applies to the ECB, to the members of its organs, and to its staff, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 22 of that protocol. The supreme decision-making body of the ECB is the Governing Council, which, in accordance with Article 283(1) TFEU, comprises the members of the Executive Board of the ECB and the governors of the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro."], "id": "5438cfa9-1cb6-4486-a1bf-377fcdf8d26a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In order to minimise the threat of interference while not unduly delaying the progress of the investigations, both sides must contribute to ensuring a prompt examination. In this connection, Slovenia pointed out that the ECB allowed more than six months to pass before communicating its criteria for the identification of protected documents to the Slovenian authorities. The ECB was unable to explain this delay at the hearing. However, the Slovenian authorities actually offered the ECB the opportunity to comment only with regard to the documents referred to in point 24 of this Opinion. Instead of refusing to carry out an examination with regard to all the other documents, either the examining judge \u2013 following the example of the Zwartveld case \u2013 or the court hearing the ECB\u2019s appeal should have referred the matter to the Court of Justice in order to determine the scope of the protection afforded by Articles 2 and 22 of the Protocol on the of the European Union."], "id": "11106205-c287-48a3-a201-fd565be07e1c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Protocol on must be interpreted as granting ECB staff, to which it expressly refers, the same immunity from legal proceedings enjoyed by the staff of other EU institutions. It does not follow from the Treaties or the Protocol on the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB that the EU legislature intended to confer on the members of the organs of the ECB, and in particular the members of the Governing Council, its main decision-making body, less protection than on the staff of the ECB as a whole."], "id": "59257310-04bd-4866-b567-3c1abbbd28e6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Slovenia contests that view, stating that the limitation of the protection to documents \u2018belonging to or held by\u2019 the organisation concerned was in line with general principles of international law. The of the Union were derived from those accorded to international organisations under international law to protect them from unjustified interference by the State in which they are registered. Since, with its increasing level of integration, the Union could no longer be regarded as a conventional international organisation, the privileges and immunities accorded to it also lost their justification and therefore had to be applied restrictively. In contrast to what was typically the case with international organisations, the Union was not in a weaker position in relation to its Member States. In any event, a document was no longer protected by Article 2 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union if the institution concerned communicated or transmitted that document to a national authority \u2013 such as a central bank. Transmission to third parties was to be regarded as a waiver of the privileges and immunities of the Protocol. Finally, also due to their functional character, the privileges and immunities of the Union required a restrictive interpretation."], "id": "fdbe3cda-9191-49f0-bf0e-0ef75461e090", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["On 17 January 2017, the ECB brought a constitutional complaint against the order referred to in paragraph 26 above, relying on the fundamental procedural rights set out in the Ustava Republike Slovenije (Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia), in particular the right to be heard by a court or tribunal established in accordance with the law. In that constitutional complaint, the ECB submitted that it took the view that a request for a preliminary ruling should be referred to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 2 of the Protocol on . On 19 April 2018, the Ustavno sodi\u0161\u010de (Constitutional Court, Slovenia) dismissed that complaint on the ground that the ECB could not claim the fundamental procedural rights upon which it was relying."], "id": "57c8f8ec-c865-4587-89e9-c9f2230c9afa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In that connection, it follows from both the wording of Article 9 of the Protocol on the of the European Union and the title of Chapter III, in which that article is contained, that those immunities are granted to \u2018Members of the European Parliament\u2019, and therefore to persons who have acquired that status as a result of the official declaration of the election results by the Member States, as indicated in paragraph 71 above."], "id": "952bad6a-c3f6-47bd-96a2-dfb4b06bb076", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["On the other hand, neither Article 11(a) nor Article 17 of the Protocol on indicates which authority is competent to assess the condition for the application of the immunity from legal proceedings referred to in paragraph 56 above, namely that the act alleged against the official or other servant of the European Union must have been carried out by him or her in his or her official capacity."], "id": "41c346db-0202-4bd0-9e22-23696c4242ec", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["However, the referring court notes that that case-law does not resolve the issue whether the immunities provided for in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of the Protocol on the of the European Union are applicable during the period prior to the commencement of the first session held by the European Parliament following elections. That being said, that court adds that, in view of the wording of those provisions, their purpose and their legislative context, as interpreted by the Court in its judgments of 7 July 2005, Le Pen v Parliament (C\u2011208/03 P, EU:C:2005:429), and of 30 April 2009, Italy and Donnici v Parliament (C\u2011393/07 et C\u20119/08, EU:C:2009:275), it could be considered that the immunities laid down in those provisions apply only to Members of the European Parliament who have taken their seat within that institution or, at the very least, persons who were included, by the competent national authorities, on the list of those having complied with the requirements, under the national law of the Member States, to acquire the status of a Member of the European Parliament. Nevertheless, both that interpretation and the interpretation according to which those immunities apply to all persons elected as Members of the European Parliament raise questions, in the referring court\u2019s view, having regard to their practical consequences."], "id": "03bac2f1-5b76-4f2f-a699-4fa4ac1d07b5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Conversely, Article 9 of that protocol refers, with respect to Members of the Parliament, to \u2018immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings\u2019. Article 8 of Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union confers on Members of the Parliament material immunity or non-liability for opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties, whereas Article 9 of that protocol guarantees them procedural immunity or inviolability against legal proceedings; see, on that distinction, judgments of 21 October 2008, Marra (C\u2011200/07 and C\u2011201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraph 24), and of 6 September 2011, Patriciello (C\u2011163/10, EU:C:2011:543, paragraph 18), and also Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Joined Cases Marra (C\u2011200/07 and C\u2011201/07, EU:C:2008:369, point 13), and Opinion of Advocate General J\u00e4\u00e4skinen in Patriciello (C\u2011163/10, EU:C:2011:379, point 3)."], "id": "b5e3d13e-866e-40be-8a8b-509825a98a60", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that it cannot be ruled out that, in certain cases, investigations against an EU official in respect of official acts may already threaten to impair the independence or functioning of EU institutions. For that reason, however, Article 18 of the Protocol on the of the EU provides that, for the purpose of applying that protocol, the institutions of the EU are to cooperate with the responsible authorities of the Member States concerned. This is intended to avoid conflicts in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Protocol and generally to ensure that the objectives of the latter are not frustrated. Article 18 of the Protocol gives concrete expression to the provision of Article 4(3) TEU in this respect."], "id": "82fe737e-d93a-446a-895f-dae4e06be602", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has to date had only one opportunity to take a position on the question of when an act is connected with the duties of a member of EU staff in such a way that he or she can be deemed to be \u2018acting in [his or her] official capacity\u2019 within the meaning of Article 11(a) of the Protocol on of the EU. In the Sayag and Z\u00fcrich judgments, it ruled in that regard that immunity from legal proceedings only covers acts which, by their nature, represent a participation by the person entitled to the immunity in the performance of the tasks of the institution to which he or she belongs. The acts must, by virtue of an internal and direct relationship, be the necessary extension of the tasks entrusted to the institutions."], "id": "8b4b7f2f-61c3-4e7e-86ec-728a97203f7e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from that article, which is confirmed both by the order of 13 July 1990, Zwartveld and Others (C\u20112/88-IMM, EU:C:1990:315, paragraph 19), and by Article 343 TFEU, that the protection of immunity from legal proceedings is granted to the European Union itself and that it must be waived as a general rule, unless it is contrary to the interests of the European Union. Similarly, Article 23 of the Staff Regulations, the only provision of the Staff Regulations referring to the of officials, confirms, as is clear from its actual wording, that those privileges and immunities are \u2018accorded solely in the interests of the Union\u2019."], "id": "ad37a623-bf17-4050-aea1-d97502120a86", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["This appeal, by which the European Commission challenges the General Court\u2019s decision in RQ v Commission, raises a number of important questions concerning the fundamental right of an official of the EU institutions to be heard in his own defence. First, is a decision to waive an EU official\u2019s immunity from prosecution in national criminal proceedings an \u2018act affecting him adversely\u2019, for the purposes of the Staff Regulations? Second, what factors should be taken into account in assessing whether an official\u2019s immunity should be waived in accordance with Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union (\u2018Protocol No 7\u2019)? Third, how should the right to be heard be interpreted in relation to the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019)?"], "id": "e3041e4d-1fd5-49a9-84c9-0e4386cf58cf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union \u2013 Member of an organ of the European Central Bank \u2013 Governor of a national central bank of a Member State \u2013 Immunity from criminal proceedings \u2013 Indictment connected with activities carried out in the course of employment within the Member State)"], "id": "6d2558af-c822-4e6d-ad4c-98fb1a6bd280", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, the second sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations cannot be extended to the wife of a diplomatic agent who has benefited, in that capacity, from certain pursuant to the Vienna Convention, but who cannot claim a direct legal connection of that kind. In that regard, the Commission rightly states that the applicant\u2019s right to diplomatic status was not a personal right, but a derived right, intended to facilitate the family life of diplomatic agents, that she acquired through her husband\u2019s duties."], "id": "75cd13b3-46c3-4c1a-9222-524e381ab7ad", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["As the Court indicates in the judgment of 21 October 2008, Marra (C\u2011200/07 and C\u2011201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraphs 32 to 42), the assessment of the conditions for applying the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts. If, in applying Article 8 of the Protocol, those courts have doubts concerning the interpretation of that article, they may refer a question to the Court under Article 267 TFEU on the interpretation of that article of the Protocol, courts of final instance being, in such circumstances, obliged to make such a reference to the Court. However, the Court emphasised that the Parliament and the national judicial authorities have a duty to cooperate sincerely in order to avoid any conflict in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Protocol, which in practice means that where an action has been brought against a Member of the European Parliament before a national court and that court is informed that a procedure for defence of the of that Member has been initiated, that court must stay the judicial proceedings and request the Parliament to issue its opinion as soon as possible."], "id": "2a199263-1d83-4642-bbae-9d9cfb902e25", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the Commission\u2019s first plea, the parties are in dispute, on the one hand, over the question of whether documents in the possession of a national central bank may be regarded as being covered by the protection of the ECB\u2019s archives that is provided for in Articles 2 and 22 of the Protocol on the of the European Union. While Slovenia takes the view that this should be ruled out from a conceptual standpoint alone, the Commission considers that such documents are also protected in so far as they are connected to the performance of the tasks of the ESCB or the Eurosystem."], "id": "f265f52d-a7f2-49a2-b06d-d3de37d96b40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["That interpretation is consistent with the objectives pursued by the Protocol on the of the European Union, which consists \u2013 as follows from the Court\u2019s case-law \u2013 in ensuring that the institutions of the European Union have full and effective protection against hindrances or risks to their proper functioning and independence (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 1986, Wybot, 149/85, EU:C:1986:310, paragraphs 12 and 22; order of 13 July 1990, Zwartveld and Others, C\u20112/88\u2011IMM, EU:C:1990:315, paragraph 19, and judgment of 22 March 2007, Commission v Belgium, C\u2011437/04, EU:C:2007:178, paragraph 56)."], "id": "8a6606c6-16e4-4bf7-bb63-3c66dd7f794d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["On 16 November 2016, the ECB lodged an urgent appeal with the Okro\u017eno sodi\u0161\u010de v Ljubljani (Ljubljana Regional Court) in order to prevent the imminent securing of the electronic documents. According to the Slovenian Government, the lawfulness of the search and seizure per se was also the subject of this appeal. In any event, Ljubljana Regional Court dismissed it the following day on the ground that the Protocol on the of the European Union did not preclude seizure and securing operations."], "id": "1dc04051-de28-4fdb-9312-69f592d6917d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["After the appellants submitted their observations to the Parliament and were heard by the JURI Committee, on 23 February 2021 the latter adopted reports A 9\u20110020/2021, A 9\u20110021/2021 and A 9\u20110022/2021 concerning the requests for waiver of the appellants\u2019 immunity. By the decisions at issue, the Parliament waived the appellants\u2019 immunity on the basis of point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266; \u2018the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union\u2019)."], "id": "9f32454a-0e71-42b6-86b6-66e8b0702b6f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The duration of sessions of the Parliament, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the of the European Union, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, begins at the opening of the first session of Parliament following its re-election, that is to say, on the date referred to in Article 11(3) of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787, as amended by Decision 2002/772. That provision of the Protocol begins to apply on the same date. The same applies to a Member of the European Parliament who has not effectively taken office, because he or she has not complied with all the formalities required by national law."], "id": "d682b54e-a2c3-4299-8251-7f1950271ea0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission, supported by the ECB, submits that by unilaterally seizing at the premises of the Central Bank of Slovenia documents connected to the performance of the ESCB\u2019s and the Eurosystem\u2019s tasks, the Republic of Slovenia has infringed the principle of the inviolability of the archives of the ECB and, consequently, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 TFEU, Article 39 of the Protocol on the ESCB and of the ECB, Articles 2, 18 and 22 of the Protocol on and Article 4(3) TEU."], "id": "cbc6663e-5f71-4c7e-8547-822d78889c73", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Whereas these investigations must be conducted in accordance with the Treaty and in particular with \u2026 Protocol [(No 7)] on the of the [European Union ], while respecting the Staff Regulations of officials[ ] and the conditions of employment of other servants \u2026 and with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular, the principle of fairness, for the right of persons involved to express their views on the facts concerning them and for the principle that the conclusions of an investigation may be based solely on elements which have evidential value; whereas to that end the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies must lay down the terms and conditions under which such internal investigations are conducted; whereas consequently the Staff Regulations should be amended in order to lay down the rights and obligations of officials and other servants as regards internal investigations\u2019."], "id": "98b1b36c-abc1-4596-a13b-b0ff503cc4bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Where the national authority responsible for criminal proceedings considers from the outset that the act was carried out by the official or servant concerned in his or her official capacity, it must submit directly to the EU institution concerned a request for waiver of his or her immunity if it intends to continue those proceedings. In accordance with the rule laid down in the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Protocol on , which is a specific expression of the duty of sincere cooperation owed to the Member States by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union, that request for waiver of immunity must be granted unless it is established that the interests of the Union preclude it. That functional and therefore relative character of the privileges and immunities of the European Union, to which the Court has already had occasion to draw attention (order of 13 July 1990, Zwartveld and Others, C\u20112/88\u2011IMM, EU:C:1990:315, paragraph 20), is all the more important because the effectiveness of proceedings, in particular criminal proceedings, in the Member States is itself capable of directly falling within the interests of the European Union, in particular as regards the protection of the European Union\u2019s financial interests (see, to that effect, judgments of 2 May 2018, Scialdone, C\u2011574/15, EU:C:2018:295, paragraphs 27 to 29; of 5 June 2018, Kolev and Others, C\u2011612/15, EU:C:2018:392, paragraphs 53 to 55; and of 18 May 2021, Asocia\u0163ia \u2018Forumul Judec\u0103torilor din Rom\u00e2nia\u2019 and Others, C\u201183/19, C\u2011127/19, C\u2011195/19, C\u2011291/19, C\u2011355/19 and C\u2011397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraphs 212 to 214)."], "id": "ed291159-bd26-4e30-bdcf-e92260d54109", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, as the Commission argues in its application, the concept of \u2018inviolability\u2019, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Protocol on , means protection against any unilateral interference on the part of the Member States. That is confirmed, as the Advocate General observed in points 67 and 68 of her Opinion, by the fact that that concept, which also appears in Article 1 of the Protocol, is described as protection against any search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation measures."], "id": "f1746e0f-e5c1-4a28-bf7e-f3cb9ad75bb1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The immunity from domestic legal proceedings pursuant to Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the European Union precludes the opening of legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in an official capacity or the taking of coercive measures by a public authority in respect of a person referred to in that provision before agreement has been reached with the EU institution to which that person belongs. However, this provision does not generally preclude the opening and conduct of preliminary investigations in respect of such acts."], "id": "a1acdec9-1086-4aee-9ab7-c224d8282a6d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The current wording of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol has been practically unchanged since the 1951 Protocol on the of the European Coal and Steel Community. I share the view held by academic commentators that the reference to national law in relation to the immunity of Members of the European Parliament in their own Member States is a relic from the time when members of the Assembly were also members of national parliaments. At that time, they already enjoyed the immunity under national law and it was therefore unnecessary to add a second immunity. That situation became anachronistic once Members of the European Parliament became elected by direct suffrage, and has been even more so since the prohibition on holding both mandates. It has also been strongly criticised as anachronistic and as a source of unequal treatment."], "id": "c1cc7ecc-33f0-4a8b-b1f4-33ffa54cf787", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The General Court then proceeded to reject all the Commission\u2019s arguments that sought to challenge that conclusion. First, it rejected the Commission\u2019s submission that the Court\u2019s judgment in Humblet v Belgian State, concerning the exemption of EU officials from all national taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments (paid by what was at that time the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (\u2018the ECSC\u2019)), did not confirm that an official can bring proceedings against an institution\u2019s decision to waive his immunity. Second, the General Court held that there was no basis in law for the Commission\u2019s argument that that Court\u2019s earlier ruling in Mote v Parliament could not be applied by analogy, because that case concerned the of a Member of the European Parliament (\u2018MEP\u2019) rather than an official. Third, the General Court rejected the Commission\u2019s submission that the decision of the former Civil Service Tribunal in A and G v Commission, should be disregarded because that ruling had not been confirmed by the General Court or this Court."], "id": "f3b6ccdb-b8af-4351-999e-9d3652c6124f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Admittedly, in its judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C\u2011424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367, paragraphs 42 and 43), cited by the applicant, the Court of Justice referred to the privileges, immunities and the special status from which the party concerned benefited, in finding that she had a specific tie linking her to another State which hindered her integration in the country of employment. However, the question at issue in that case was whether the applicant, who worked at the L\u00e4nder Liaison Office of the Republic of Austria, had worked for that State and therefore had a tie to it. In that judgment, the Court of Justice deduced such a tie from a number of factors. The first of those factors was that the staff of a permanent representation must be considered to be working for the Member State concerned and, consequently, to be in a situation of expatriation, since they are part of the structures of that representation. The second factor was that, although the person concerned worked at the L\u00e4nder Liaison Office, she was a member of staff of the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Austria and was subject to the supervisory authority of the Austrian ambassador, so that she had to be regarded as having worked for the Austrian State. Lastly, the third factor was that her status was the same as that of other officials posted to that representation (judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier, C\u2011424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367, paragraphs 41 and 42). Thus, the special status referred to by the Court of Justice in paragraph 43 of that judgment cannot be understood as deriving solely from the from which the person concerned had benefited. On the contrary, the Court of Justice placed more emphasis on the fact that she had worked for the Republic of Austria in its Permanent Representation."], "id": "273b5ace-c02c-4aa8-8adc-353486264e89", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["By its fourth question, the referring court essentially seeks to ascertain how to assess whether the accused person in this specific case is immune from legal proceedings under Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the EU, what role the existence of an EU interest plays in that regard, and in what circumstances that court must request the ECB to waive the immunity."], "id": "c0ab90a7-e085-4ef5-ae6e-d75cf481d8f3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, pursuant to Article 18 of the Protocol on the of the European Union, the institutions and the Member States must cooperate for the purpose of applying the Protocol. In this respect, the provision gives concrete expression to the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU. For the EU institution concerned, the Court has derived from this provision a duty to disclose documents in so far as there is no risk of interference with the functioning or independence of that institution. Correspondingly, the authorities of the Member State are in principle obliged to obtain such a disclosure decision if they wish to access archives of the Union, in this case documents connected with the performance of the tasks of the ESCB."], "id": "c6eb0e8f-ba0f-4fed-bd42-0b90ef7d58c3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 11(a) of the Protocol on must be interpreted as meaning that the immunity from legal proceedings for which it provides does not preclude the criminal prosecution in its entirety, including investigative measures, the gathering of evidence and service of the indictment. Nevertheless, if, at the stage of the investigations conducted by the national authorities and before the court is seised, it is established that the person under investigation may enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in respect of the acts which are the subject of the criminal prosecution, it is for those authorities to request a waiver of immunity from the EU institution concerned. That immunity does not preclude evidence gathered during the investigation from being used in other judicial proceedings."], "id": "c9196f92-1637-4cec-941e-9c429542dd14", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that the which Protocol No 7 grants to the European Union have a functional character, inasmuch as they are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the European Union, which means, in particular, that the privileges, immunities and facilities accorded to officials and other servants of the European Union are accorded solely in the interests of the European Union (order of 13 July 1990, Zwartveld and Others, C\u20112/88-IMM, EU:C:1990:315, paragraphs 19 and 20)."], "id": "3897e41a-f078-403a-af65-e4ede8150b10", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Member State national on remand in custody elected as a Member of the European Parliament during the trial stage of criminal proceedings \u2013 Refusal to authorise the person concerned to comply with a requirement under national law \u2013 Protocol No 7 on the of the European Union \u2013 Article 9 \u2013 Sphere to which parliamentary immunity belongs and its scope \u2013 Concepts of \u2018elected\u2019 and \u2018Member of the European Parliament\u2019 \u2013 Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 39 \u2013 Right to stand as a candidate)"], "id": "de44f802-1af3-47b1-95bd-1a682fa24d78", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["(Infringement proceedings \u2013 Article 343 TFEU \u2013 of the Union \u2013 Statute of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and of the European Central Bank (ECB) \u2013 Article 39 \u2013 Privileges and immunities of the ECB \u2013 Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union \u2013 Articles 2, 18 and 22 \u2013 Inviolability of the archives of the ECB \u2013 Cooperation between Union institutions and Member States\u2019 law enforcement authorities \u2013 Acting by common agreement in application of the Protocol \u2013 Search and seizure of documents at the premises of Banka Slovenije \u2013 Documents connected to the performance of the ESCB\u2019s tasks \u2013 Article 4(3) TEU \u2013 Principle of sincere cooperation)"], "id": "f714ebae-e054-450e-b1f3-1deda1395ee2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Thirdly, although officials and other servants of the European Union enjoy, under Article 11(a) of the Protocol on , immunity from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them, including their words and written language, in their official capacity, it must be observed that the governors of the national central banks are in a different position from those officials and other servants. First, as national authorities, they are appointed by and, as the case may be, dismissed by the Member States (judgment of 26 February 2019, Rim\u0161\u0113vi\u010ds and ECB v Latvia, C\u2011202/18 and C\u2011238/18, EU:C:2019:139, paragraph 72). Secondly, they are not subject to an EU institution since, under Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, they may neither request nor take instructions from the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union, or from the Member States or any other body."], "id": "19599ccf-30bd-43ee-b7c2-f4437dde4dfb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Such an understanding of the necessary connection does not unduly restrict the Member States\u2019 legitimate interest in pursuing criminal prosecution. This is because the existence of an act performed in an official capacity and the associated immunity under Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the EU \u2013 possibly after having been established by the Court \u2013 does not mean that the person concerned may not ultimately be prosecuted and sentenced. Rather, the authorities or courts of the Member States may request the institution concerned to waive immunity in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Protocol. In accordance with the case-law of the Court, the EU institutions are in turn obliged, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 18 of the Protocol, to grant the request if there is no EU interest in the immunity in the specific case. If they wrongly refuse to waive it after such a request, the Court can still allow the criminal prosecution to proceed."], "id": "436bbf31-2006-4b58-9b34-b7e7391a14a7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In response to questions put to it at the hearing before the Court, concerning the potential impact of the judgment of 14 October 2019 on the request for a preliminary ruling and on the actions that the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) could take in the light of the Court\u2019s answers to its questions, the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office replied that it would be for the referring court to give due effect to the judgment delivered in the present case and, in the event that it followed from that judgment that Mr Junqueras Vies enjoyed an immunity on the basis of Article 9 of the Protocol on the of the European Union, to determine the effects of that immunity in the context of the action brought by Mr Junqueras Vies against the order referred to in paragraph 25 above."], "id": "eddcfac5-0a88-452c-a2fe-cd7f38092836", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The immunity conferred on the Members of the Governing Council by Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union must be distinguished from the protection against being relieved from office enjoyed by the governors of the national central banks under the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB. Thus, when a governor is relieved from office, his independence is guaranteed by Article 14.2 of that Statute, which takes precedence as a lex specialis over the general provisions of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union. If the conditions laid down in Article 14.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB are fulfilled \u2014 which it is for the Court to verify, where necessary \u2014 a governor may therefore be relieved from office without there also being any need to adopt a decision waiving his immunity. Consequently, an infringement of the provisions of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union cannot, as such, be relied on as against the decision to relieve a governor from office in the context of an action based on Article 14.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB."], "id": "bce78cd8-db20-4a6f-a322-b5bf9cc95cb1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Given that neither the Protocol on the of the European Union nor the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament precisely define the cases in which the immunity of a Member of that institution must be waived, the Parliament enjoys a priori broad discretion when deciding on a request for waiver of the immunity of one of those Members."], "id": "a4a024e4-1ebd-49cd-80d6-dfae881ace9f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In its later judgment of 29 November 2007, Salvador Garc\u00eda v Commission (C\u20117/06 P, EU:C:2007:724, paragraph 51), also cited by the applicant, the Court of Justice referred to its judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C\u2011424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367), in finding that the special status of the person concerned, as a member of the staff of a permanent representation, resulted in her having a specific tie linking her to the Member State concerned and in finding also that that privileged status, which allowed her to enjoy various , in itself created an obstacle which prevented the person concerned from forming a lasting tie linking her to the State to which she was posted and, consequently, from integrating to the requisite degree in the society of that country. However, in paragraph 50 of the judgment of 29 November 2007, Salvador Garc\u00eda v Commission (C\u20117/06 P, EU:C:2007:724), the Court of Justice stated, again with reference to the judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C\u2011424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367), that functional integration within the permanent representation constituted a decisive factor in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for another State (see also, to that effect, judgment of 24 January 2008, Adam v Commission, C\u2011211/06 P, EU:C:2008:34, paragraph 45)."], "id": "468cc0fa-07d1-4cc5-8469-484ac8ff7ac2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The starting position in the context of the VCDR is different in this respect. The traditional approaches to justifying diplomatic immunity \u2013 the theories of personal representation, of extraterritoriality and of functional necessity \u2013 cannot, according to the prevailing opinion, justify a comprehensive personal immunity as provided for in Article 31(1) of the VCDR; see, inter alia, Ross, M., \u2018Rethinking Diplomatic Immunity: A Review of Remedial Approaches to Address the Abuses of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities\u2019, American University International Law Review, 4(1) (1989), p. 173 (pp. 179 and 180); Maginnis, V., \u2018Limiting Diplomatic Immunity: Lessons Learned from the 1946 Convention on the of the United Nations\u2019, Brook. J. Int\u2019l L., 28, 2003, p. 989 (p. 992). For that reason, it can be assumed that the comprehensive diplomatic immunity is intended to take account of the fear of political persecution of diplomats or the use thereof as a means of exerting pressure; see Maginnis, loc. cit. (p. 996)."], "id": "8a45b9ea-ee14-4571-bf1f-473e8a34d1ca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court notes that OH\u2019s action is directed against a former European Commissioner who, although a Greek national, enjoys a privilege of jurisdictional immunity under Article 343 TFEU and Articles 11, 17 and 19 of the Protocol on . In that context, that court entertains doubts as to the interpretation to be given to the relevant EU rules and its jurisdiction to hear such a dispute."], "id": "5c21d711-dfaf-4a31-ad6e-924882d0588b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that it is apparent, first, from Article 11(a) of the Protocol on that officials and other servants of the European Union enjoy immunity from legal proceedings only in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity and, secondly, from the first paragraph of Article 17 of that protocol that that immunity is granted only if it is warranted by an interest of the European Union."], "id": "00422175-f539-4978-aa5e-0b14a03f1b12", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Privileges and Immunities", "masked_sentences": ["More specifically, the Commission submits, first, that, in the judgment of 16 December 1960, Humblet v Belgian State (6/60-IMM, EU:C:1960:48), the Court did not rule on the question of whether or not a decision to waive immunity was in the nature of an act adversely affecting a person, in so far as it based its reasoning on Article 16 of the Protocol on the of the ECSC. However, that provision has no equivalent in Protocol No 7."], "id": "eb7b630a-dc1e-4c86-977c-a97c90edf130", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, to declare that, by unilaterally seizing from the premises of the Bank of Slovenia documents connected to the performance of the ESCB\u2019s and the Eurosystem\u2019s tasks and by unfairly cooperating with the ECB on that subject, Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 TFEU, Article 39 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, Articles 2, 18 and 22 of the Protocol on the of the European Union and Article 4(3) TEU;"], "id": "cc659ced-f0b6-4a63-a1a7-976ecbb10b86", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the foregoing that although the immunity from legal proceedings in respect of official acts of servants of the European Union within the meaning of Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the EU does cover coercive measures taken by public authorities in criminal proceedings, it does not preclude the opening and conduct of preliminary investigations in general."], "id": "02ea9fa3-257f-4a56-8d8b-b30f61c5b303", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that, in the absence of any reference to national law in Article 11(a) of the Protocol on , the concept of \u2018immunity from legal proceedings\u2019 in that provision must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law, the meaning and scope of which must be identical in all the Member States. It is therefore for the Court to give a uniform interpretation of that concept in the EU legal order."], "id": "897b3637-332b-470b-8dca-06aa63e2e5d0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["By its fourth question, which it is appropriate to examine before the third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 11(a) of the Protocol on , read in conjunction with Article 17 of that protocol, must be interpreted as allowing the national authority responsible for the criminal proceedings, that is to say, depending on the stage of the proceedings, the authority responsible for criminal prosecution or the competent criminal court, itself to find that the conditions for immunity from legal proceedings are satisfied before requesting the EU institution concerned to waive that immunity."], "id": "a963523f-95dd-4daf-a366-8d86a172caea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The reason why the scope of immunity of EU staff is limited resides in the fact that, according to Article 343 TFEU, the European Union enjoys only \u2018such as are necessary for the performance of its tasks\u2019. It follows from the case-law of the Court that the privileges and immunities accorded to the EU are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the EU. The limited nature of the European Union\u2019s immunities is confirmed by the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Protocol, according to which immunities are to be accorded to officials and other servants of the EU solely in the interests of the EU \u2013 and not in the staff\u2019s own interests. The immunities are therefore functional not only in terms of their subject matter, but also in terms of their rationale and purpose."], "id": "cd8a8cd6-863e-4e6e-9ef6-1ac54cd37b66", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Nevertheless, if, at the stage of the investigations conducted by the national authorities and before the matter is brought before a court, it is established that the official or servant of the European Union may enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in respect of the acts which are the subject of the criminal prosecution, it is for those authorities, in accordance with Article 4(3) TEU and Article 18 of the Protocol on , to request a waiver of immunity from the EU institution concerned, which is then required to act, in particular, in accordance with the approach set out in paragraphs 58, 62 and 74 above."], "id": "1cb5585b-fbfc-4d6f-8712-55777942e7d8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["The guarantees under Article 14.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB in conjunction with the duty of sincere cooperation under Article 18 of the Protocol on the of the EU and Article 4(3) TEU \u2013 compliance with which may be enforced by infringement proceedings where necessary \u2013 therefore ultimately ensure sufficient protection against interferences with the independence of the ECB, the national central banks and members thereof by criminal-prosecution measures in purely national and non-official matters, and this makes it unnecessary to extend the immunity of the persons concerned beyond the clear wording of Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EU."], "id": "46297a05-f63f-4cf9-86ad-4a783b4a7dd8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Next, the Commission objects to the General Court\u2019s reference to the decisions in Mote v Parliament and Gollnisch v Parliament. The General Court cited the latter to support the proposition that the under Protocol No 7 confers an individual right on the person concerned. It relied on the former in support of the reasoning (based on Humblet v Belgian State ) that privileges and immunities are granted directly to officials."], "id": "e06ab047-4b3b-4812-9474-a7774abf0ae0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU \u2013 Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union \u2013 Articles 11, 17 and 19 \u2013 Former member of the Commission \u2013 Immunity of jurisdiction \u2013 Action for non-contractual liability \u2013 Waiver \u2013 Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)"], "id": "86ab9f2c-f313-49ea-806a-b1329ff31a2e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["However, the immunity conferred on the governors by Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union protects them against proceedings initiated independently of a decision to relieve them from office, before it has been adopted or again if such a decision is withdrawn after being challenged before the Court. Accordingly, such immunity may be relevant in the context of an action relating to the decision to relieve a governor from office if the evidence submitted by the Member State concerned in support of that decision had been obtained in breach of that immunity."], "id": "4684b733-3a60-4fd6-ae81-2bee5e076710", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["By its second plea, the Commission accuses Slovenia of breaching its duty of sincere cooperation under Article 18 of the Protocol on the of the European Union and Article 4(3) TEU, as the Slovenian law enforcement authorities did not engage in \u2018constructive dialogue\u2019 with the ECB. In essence, the Commission accuses the Slovenian authorities of not sufficiently coordinating with the ECB, either before or after the search and seizure of the documents, in order to minimise the interference with their functioning and independence."], "id": "1e11647d-e29b-4222-88d4-9a96ba4010e4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, it must be declared that, by unilaterally seizing at the premises of the Central Bank of Slovenia documents connected to the performance of the tasks of the ESCB and of the Eurosystem and, as regards the period after that seizure, by failing to cooperate sincerely with the ECB on that matter, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 TFEU, Article 39 of the Protocol on the ESCB and the ECB, Articles 2, 18 and 22 of the Protocol on and Article 4(3) TEU."], "id": "14d977a7-d8c8-4a4a-88e7-028551b48df7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Nor do I see any logic for supporting such a distinction. As explained in point 67 above, are granted to EU staff in the interest of the Union, in order to enable that staff to perform their duties effectively, without having to fear (civil, criminal, administrative or other) legal proceedings for the acts they accomplish in that context. There may thus naturally be situations in which the Union decides that the initiation and carrying out of such legal proceedings \u2013 be it of a civil, criminal or other nature \u2013 is not contrary to its interest."], "id": "6039bfed-f3d7-4f4c-b062-6ddaa801af7a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Article 22 of Protocol (No 7) on the of the European Union, read in the light of Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State enjoys the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union for acts performed by him or her in his or her official capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank."], "id": "69d5e2ac-9955-4693-9a84-ababac8a99be", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["As the Advocate General pointed out in point 70 of his Opinion, those provisions must therefore be understood as meaning that the acquisition of the status of Member of the European Parliament, for the purposes of Article 9 of the Protocol on the of the European Union, occurs because of and at the time of the official declaration of the election results carried out by the Member States."], "id": "e12f91a5-a760-4863-8f7d-7a18f54eff95", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["In order to determine whether a particular act has been performed in an official capacity within the meaning of Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the EU, the decisive factor is whether there is a connection between the act and the duties and tasks of the EU servant. In this respect, the referring court asks, in particular, whether it may itself assess whether such a connection exists."], "id": "e04e13de-b218-4c27-94d8-f6e311ee42dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that Latvian law does not provide for immunity of the central bank of Latvia or its bodies. However, pursuant to Article 11(a) of the Protocol on the of the EU, in the territory of each Member State, officials and other servants of the EU are immune from legal proceedings in respect of \u2018acts performed by them in their official capacity\u2019. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 22, the Protocol also applies to the ECB, to the members of its organs, and to its staff. According to the first sentence of Article 282(1) TFEU, the national central banks form an integral part of the ESCB, and their governors \u2013 in so far as the Member State concerned is part of the Eurosystem \u2013 are members of the Governing Council, which is the highest decision-making body of the ECB."], "id": "b579ee57-39ea-4d63-8144-3b489dd850e1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, the answer to the second question is that Article 11(a) of the Protocol on , read in conjunction with Article 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State continues, in respect of acts performed in his or her official capacity, to enjoy the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of that protocol after he or she has ceased to hold office."], "id": "15f465d8-a51b-4ace-9d0c-52feb551c733", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["(4) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 11(a) of [the Protocol on the of the EU], read in conjunction with Article 17 of that protocol, allow the person directing the proceedings or, at the corresponding stage of the proceedings, the composition of the court, to assess whether there is a European Union interest in those proceedings and, only where it is found that there is \u2013 that is to say, if [the accused person\u2019s] alleged conduct relates to the performance of his duties at an EU institution \u2013 to request the institution concerned, that is to say, the European Central Bank, to waive that person\u2019s immunity?"], "id": "189edc0d-ae2a-4240-8e40-a493a45ca2d4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "privileges and immunities", "masked_sentences": ["On 9 December 2016, the Commission sent a letter to the Republic of Slovenia under the \u2018EU Pilot\u2019 procedure, informing that State of its doubts as to the correct application of Articles 2 and 22 of the Protocol on in respect of the seizure of documents carried out at the premises of the Central Bank of Slovenia on 6 July 2016. The Republic of Slovenia replied to that letter by a letter of 23 January 2017."], "id": "88059581-a601-48be-b007-4b2dcfb361c3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Next, as regards , under Article 45 TFEU, to which the German Government refers, I think that, although the provisions of Article 19(3) and (8) of the Directives might indeed constitute a barrier to the exercise of that freedom, as the German Government maintains, they are nevertheless responsive to objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union and are justified and proportionate."], "id": "2e28f182-9bd9-4f0f-9780-57ce57c37b0e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Judgment of 20 February 1997 (C\u2011344/95, EU:C:1997:81, paragraphs 12 to 19). On jobseekers\u2019 allowances, see judgment of 23 March 2004, Collins (C\u2011138/02, EU:C:2004:172, paragraph 37), in which the Court interpreted the provisions of the Treaty on for the first time in the light of the Treaty provisions on EU citizenship. In the context of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, see judgment of 23 January 1997, Tetik (C\u2011171/95, EU:C:1997:31, paragraphs 32 to 34)."], "id": "38118c9c-42e3-4a82-9ea1-51b3d705b599", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["However, on the other hand, it should be noted that a significant number of the obstacles to the applicant\u2019s freedom of movement described in point 62 above can be removed by recognising the family relationships established in Spain for the sole purpose of applying secondary EU law on the free movement of citizens. Thus, the recognition of her daughter as her \u2018direct descendant\u2019 within the meaning of Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 and the recognition of her wife as her \u2018spouse\u2019 within the meaning of point (a) of that provision would have the effect of enabling them to reside in the territory of the Bulgarian State together with the applicant in the main proceedings. Likewise, since the definition of those concepts under Directive 2004/38 must also be adopted with regard to the concept of the \u2018family members\u2019 of a migrant worker for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1), this would also ensure that the child may claim, for example, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court concerning Article 7(2) of that regulation, the social and tax advantages associated with the applicant in the main proceedings\u2019 possible status of migrant worker in the same way as a biological child."], "id": "ff1c0946-c92e-48f8-b5a7-f4fa2d409ea2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, Article 4(4) and Articles 45, 208 and 288 TFEU, Article 7, Article 11(3)(a) and (e) and Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1), Article 11 and Article 60(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004 (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1), and Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1)."], "id": "759c14e4-da55-47b9-9366-7c576ef27a61", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, in the seventh place, so far as concerns the obligation, for workers doing logistical work, as defined in Article 1(3) of the Royal Decree of 2004 (\u2018logistics workers\u2019), to hold a \u2018security certificate\u2019, the Raad van State (Council of State) is of the view that such a measure is intended to ensure safety in general and, as a result, also that of the workers concerned. The question nevertheless arises as to whether such a measure, interpreted as meaning that that security certificate must be requested each time a new employment contract is concluded, does not represent a significant and disproportionate administrative burden, in the light of the freedom of establishment and the ."], "id": "70f6baa5-632b-4111-91e8-5e52ba7bbeee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Article 45(2) TFEU states that entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment. That provision is given specific expression in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, which states that a worker who is a national of a Member State is to enjoy, in the territory of the other Member States, the same social and tax advantages as national workers (judgment of 2 March 2017, Eschenbrenner, C\u2011496/15, EU:C:2017:152, paragraph 32)."], "id": "43658307-dcb5-48d2-8df0-a402508cae2e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Social security \u2014 Coordination of social security systems \u2014 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 \u2014 Article 3 \u2014 Matters covered \u2014 Old-age benefit \u2014 within the European Union \u2014 Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 \u2014 Article 7 \u2014 Equal treatment of national workers and migrant workers \u2014 Social advantages \u2014 Legislation of a Member State restricting the grant of an \u2018additional benefit for sportspersons who have represented the State\u2019 to the citizens of that State)"], "id": "48996551-ab9a-4775-88cf-3217bdeb443d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has held that, although Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) (\u2018Regulation No 1408/71\u2019), which were repealed and replaced by Regulation No 492/2011 and by Regulation No 883/2004 respectively, do not have the same scope of application ratione personae, the fact nonetheless remains that, since Regulation No 1612/68 is of general application as regards the free movement of workers, Article 7(2) thereof may apply to social advantages which, at the same time, come specifically within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 (judgment of 5 May 2011, Commission v Germany, C\u2011206/10, EU:C:2011:283, paragraph 39; see also, to that effect, judgment of 12 May 1998, Mart\u00ednez Sala, C\u201185/96, EU:C:1998:217, paragraph 27)."], "id": "fc15bac8-bbeb-4ffc-8001-af1b753a4f8a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, since the accession of the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic to the European Union on 1 May 2004, fully applies, in principle, to Czech nationals working in Slovakia, pursuant to Article 24 of 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 (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), and point 1.1 of Annex V thereto, subject only to the transitional provisions laid down in points 1.2 to 1.14 of that annex. As Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 is not covered by such transitional provisions, that provision applies with regard to those Czech nationals as from 1 May 2004 (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 September 1989, Lopes da Veiga, 9/88, EU:C:1989:346, paragraph 9)."], "id": "1db0bb15-834f-4d07-9508-475a54534cf8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["143. Secondly, I share the views expressed by the Commission (130) and by the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Republic of Slovenia, according to which it is of fundamental importance to recall that the rules protecting the within the European Union and the EEA, (131) including equality of treatment, are based on an overall system in which, first, the applicable social security legislation is, in general, that of the Member State in which the person concerned pursues his or her activity as an employed or self-employed person (132) and, secondly, migrant workers contribute to the financing of the social policies of the host Member State through the taxes and social contributions which they pay by virtue of their employment there, (133) which justifies the equality of the benefits or advantages granted. (134)"], "id": "0faa745f-f7c5-44ab-baac-e98c565861c0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, the Court has held that depriving a worker of the right to aggregation of periods completed under the legislation of a number of Member States, without taking into account periods completed in international organisations, would constitute an obstacle to the within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 July 2013, Gardella, C\u2011233/12, EU:C:2013:449, paragraph 45)."], "id": "b8b22731-c28a-45ef-ae0f-084a3476ec0b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["151. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should: (1) Declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the family allowance and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under: \u2013 Articles 7 and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and \u2013 Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union; (2) Declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the Familienbonus Plus (Family Bonus Plus tax credit), the sole earner\u2019s allowance, the single parent\u2019s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments for migrant workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011; (3) Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs; (4) Order the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, and the Kingdom of Norway and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs."], "id": "d9cf499c-8102-44f1-bf0b-c4b258dcc935", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["It should also be noted that forms one of the foundations of the European Union and, therefore, the provisions establishing that freedom must be interpreted broadly. In particular, a strict interpretation of Article 45(3) TFEU would jeopardise the actual chances that a national of a Member State who is seeking employment will find it in another Member State, and would, as a result, make that provision ineffective (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 1991, Antonissen, C\u2011292/89, EU:C:1991:80, paragraphs 11 and 12)."], "id": "e15f2c79-67c0-444d-bf8a-e4f7bfa71e47", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Commission submits that, since MCM is not a worker and has not left the Member State in which he lives, he does not fall within the scope of Article 45 TFEU or of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011. As far as MCM\u2019s father is concerned, the Commission considers that, in the present case, there is no restriction on the . IV. Assessment"], "id": "f6b919c1-2b92-4162-b6a8-5ea92d85f057", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the standstill clause contained in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 prohibits generally the introduction of any new national measure that has the object or effect of making the exercise by a Turkish national of the on national territory subject to conditions that are more restrictive than those which applied at the time when Decision No 1/80 entered into force in the Member State concerned (judgment of 10 July 2019, A, C\u201189/18, EU:C:2019:580, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "72f222c2-ff96-4e2b-996e-9d9f687c14cd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes receipt of an additional benefit introduced for certain high-level sportspersons who have represented that Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions conditional upon, in particular, the person applying for the benefit having the nationality of that Member State."], "id": "712790cf-0bde-4c98-8d55-a3ade0b51881", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to possible indirect discrimination based on the nationality of the workers concerned, according to the Member State in which they or their family members reside, it must be observed that neither the provisions of Regulation No 883/2004, specifically Articles 7 and 67 thereof, the purpose of which is to prevent a Member State from making entitlement to and the amount of family benefits dependent on residence of the members of the worker\u2019s family in the Member State providing the benefits (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 October 1995, Imbernon Mart\u00ednez, C\u2011321/93, EU:C:1995:306, paragraph 21), nor Article 45 TFEU provide that the right to applies outside the territory of the European Union. On the contrary, it is apparent from the clear wording of Article 45 TFEU that freedom of movement for workers \u2018shall be secured within the Union\u2019."], "id": "e7dbd1b6-9c0b-41cb-829d-c3bd9895f86d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a family allowance based on the fact that a frontier worker pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of those provisions."], "id": "6d66466c-2ac1-4ead-84d4-79d844c0461e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["However, the objective of those regulations \u2013 which is to promote the , and, in the case of the posting of workers, the freedom to provide services, by offering an advantage in the matter of social security to undertakings exercising those freedoms \u2013 might be undermined if the interpretation of Article 14(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 were to make it easier for those undertakings to use EU legislation on that subject with the sole aim of exploiting the differences between the national social security systems. In particular, such exploitation of that legislation would be likely to have a \u2018race to the bottom\u2019 effect on the social security systems of the Member States or might even lead to a reduction in the level of protection that they offer."], "id": "7fcb2eb1-4180-455d-8410-53fca140db40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, the Court of Justice has already had occasion to exclude interpretations of provisions of EU law which would lead to an absurd result (see, to that effect, in the context of , judgment of 10 December 2009, Pe\u015bla, C\u2011345/08, EU:C:2009:771, paragraphs 46 and 48, and, in the context of designs, judgment of 21 September 2017, Easy Sanitary Solutions and EUIPO v Group Nivelles, C\u2011361/15 P and C\u2011405/15 P, EU:C:2017:720, paragraph 96)."], "id": "41eb710b-bf3a-4dd3-9af2-8995c1b5ce69", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 20 and 45 TFEU, Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1)."], "id": "7bea7ec5-9c75-4938-b215-e04ec308cae2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["See paragraph 60 et seq. of that judgment. The judgment concerns a Union citizen who was economically inactive at the time when he applied for subsistence benefits for himself and his children in the host Member State, where he had previously worked. As he was no longer classified as a worker, but was seeking fresh employment in that Member State, he came within the scope of Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2004/38. He also had a right to reside in the host Member State on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1) on the ground that his children were attending school in that State and was thus entitled to equal treatment with nationals of that State in the matter of social assistance."], "id": "1c8b57c8-11f5-4441-aaaa-08395e487390", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In the same vein, it must be accepted that the possibility of a migrant worker being compensated in the same way as workers who are nationals of the host Member State for exceptional sporting results which he or she has obtained while representing that Member State or its legal predecessors may contribute to the integration of that worker into that Member State and thus to achieving the objective of ."], "id": "7f5da61a-4b8f-4250-9de9-c7345747dbdc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled that, according to the Court\u2019s settled case-law, the E 101 and A 1 Certificates are intended, like the rules of substantive law laid down in Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 and in Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, to facilitate and freedom to provide services (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 February 2018, Altun and Others, C\u2011359/16, EU:C:2018:63, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "5d191901-b643-4f34-a81a-e576c18c9bc0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["10 See the judgment in Giersch, paragraph 35. That judgment relates to Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I 1968(II), p. 475). Given that Article 7(2) of that regulation is identical to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, the Court\u2019s case-law on the interpretation of the former provision applies mutatis mutandis to the interpretation of the latter."], "id": "eea95651-8b77-4d01-a65d-22b072b7284e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 Coordination of social security systems \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 \u2013 Articles 4, 7 and 67 \u2013 \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 \u2013 Article 7 \u2013 Equality of treatment \u2013 Family benefits \u2013 Social and tax advantages \u2013 Adjustment of the amount of benefits and advantages in line with the price level in the children\u2019s State of residence)"], "id": "d385c2ac-773c-42a0-ba37-31268c84f605", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["With a view to remedying this sector-by-sector, piecemeal approach to the right of free movement and residence and facilitating the exercise of this right, there needs to be a single legislative act to amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968(II), p. 475) and to repeal the following acts: \u2026"], "id": "fd1dd608-8d6b-4a55-aaae-23b4456596bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, it should be borne in mind that national legislation tightening the conditions for family reunification of Turkish workers legally resident in the Member State in question, in relation to the conditions applicable at the time of the entry into force in that Member State of Decision No 1/80, constitutes a \u2018new restriction\u2019, within the meaning of Article 13 of that decision, on the exercise by such Turkish workers of the in that Member State (judgment of 7 August 2018, Y\u00f6n, C\u2011123/17, EU:C:2018:632, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "3ff27d3e-85ea-4743-9bbd-6a0255ed66d1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Any other interpretation of Article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which would deprive a person such as the appellant in the main proceedings of his right to transfer the actuarial equivalent of the retirement pension rights acquired in the EU pension scheme, would be incompatible with the provisions of the FEU Treaty concerning the principle of ."], "id": "6e2fe5aa-1c57-4ac8-9ea9-089167f5d7c7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["First, I would recall that Article 45 TFEU provides that is to be secured within the Union and includes a right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, to accept offers of employment actually made and to move freely within the territory of Member States for that purpose. It therefore follows from that article that a national of a Member State who is seeking employment is entitled to move freely within the territory of other Member States."], "id": "973d24c7-d16e-417d-bb8e-5862c6076317", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["According to settled case-law, Article 21(1) TFEU, which sets out in general terms the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, finds specific expression in Article 45 TFEU concerning , in Article 49 TFEU concerning freedom of establishment and in Article 56 TFEU concerning the freedom to provide services. Therefore, if the national legislation at issue falls within the scope of Article 45 TFEU, of Article 49 TFEU or of Article 56 TFEU, it will not be necessary for the Court to rule on the interpretation of Article 21 TFEU (see to that effect, inter alia, judgments of 11 September 2007, Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz, C\u201176/05, EU:C:2007:492, paragraph 34, and of 11 September 2007, Commission v Germany, C\u2011318/05, EU:C:2007:495, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "cf1a4e1f-ef5a-40d7-9c01-2f46c2c9a0fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, it should be specified that such legislation also falls within the scope of Article 45 TFEU. After all, that provision may be relied on not only by the workers themselves, but also by their employers. In order to be truly effective, the right of workers to be engaged and employed without discrimination necessarily entails as a corollary the employer\u2019s entitlement to engage them in accordance with the rules governing (judgment of 16 April 2013, Las, C\u2011202/11, EU:C:2013:239, paragraph 18). The provisions laid down in the FEU Treaty relating to freedom of movement for persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by nationals of Member States of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the European Union, and preclude measures which might place those nationals at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State. Those provisions and, in particular, Article 45 TFEU thus preclude any national measure which, even though applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is capable of hindering or rendering less attractive the exercise by Union nationals of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (judgment of 16 April 2013, Las, EU:C:2013:239, paragraphs 19 and 20 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "88f4f072-623d-4998-ad88-437039479680", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Article 45 TFEU \u2013 \u2013 Article 49 TFEU \u2013 Freedom of establishment \u2013 Article 56 TFEU \u2013 Freedom to provide services \u2013 Carrying out of port activities \u2013 Dockers \u2013 Access to the profession and recruitment \u2013 Arrangements for the recognition of dockers \u2013 Dockers not part of the quota of workers provided for in national legislation \u2013 Limitation of the duration of the work contract \u2013 Mobility of dockers between different port areas \u2013 Workers carrying out logistical work \u2013 Safety certificate \u2013 Overriding reasons in the public interest \u2013 Safety in port areas \u2013 Protection of workers \u2013 Proportionality)"], "id": "a77581e9-d342-4724-b320-c2b9f302f62d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Danish Government considers that the rules on the do not apply ratione materiae. It submits that the Swedish legislation on financial assistance should be understood as meaning that a student who does not reside in Sweden can benefit from such financial assistance if he or she can show that he or she has either the status of child of a migrant worker or a connection with Swedish society."], "id": "64d35ed8-5b19-4e63-bc4f-a52297167c07", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The , freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services are fundamental principles of the internal market enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The implementation and enforcement of those principles are further developed by the Union and aim to guarantee a level playing field for businesses and respect for the rights of workers."], "id": "8557056c-dffe-4c25-9dc6-3e5a530bb2d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with settled case-law, any national of the European Union who, irrespective of his or her place of residence and nationality, has exercised the right to and who has been employed in a Member State other than that of his or her residence comes within the scope of Article 45 TFEU (judgment of 14 March 2019, Jacob and Lennertz, C\u2011174/18, EU:C:2019:205, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "42e344c0-98d1-4813-a023-12c5d4977587", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["As the Court has already held, such advantages include, inter alia, an unemployment benefit aimed at young people who have just completed their studies and are seeking their first employment (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 September 2005, Ioannidis, C\u2011258/04, EU:C:2005:559, paragraph 34), a child-raising allowance for a worker\u2019s child (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 May 1998, Mart\u00ednez Sala, C\u201185/96, EU:C:1998:217, paragraph 26), the possibility, for the widow and infant children of a migrant worker, of benefiting from the reductions in rail fares applicable to large families (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 September 1975, Cristini, 32/75, EU:C:1975:120, paragraph 13), the possibility, for an accused person who has worker status, of using one of the languages available to the residents of a municipality of the host Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 1985, Mutsch,137/84, EU:C:1985:335, paragraphs 16 and 17), or the possibility of obtaining permission for a worker\u2019s unmarried partner, who is not a national of the host Member State, to reside in that State with that worker (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 1986, Reed, 59/85, EU:C:1986:157, paragraph 28), because all those measures may contribute to the integration of the migrant worker into the host country and thus to achieving the objective of ."], "id": "6d85a2e8-a15c-4702-8cdd-6b4758c5d76c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The Court referred to indirect discrimination (by reason of nationality) for the first time in its judgment of 12 February 1974, Sotgiu (152/73, EU:C:1974:13, paragraph 11), in respect of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on within the Community (OJ 1968 L 257, p. 2): \u2018The rules regarding equality of treatment \u2026 forbid not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result.\u2019 Emphasis added. For recent case-law on freedom of movement for workers in which the Court uses that concept, see, for example, judgment of 2 April 2020, PF and Others (C\u2011830/18, EU:C:2020:275, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "4d05dfa0-5f60-4203-b35b-99fdbc0f19b7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["As regards, last, the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU, in accordance with settled case-law that provision is intended to apply independently only to situations governed by EU law in respect to which the FEU Treaty does not lay down specific rules on non-discrimination (judgment of 11 June 2020, T\u00dcV Rheinland LGA Products and Allianz IARD, C\u2011581/18, EU:C:2020:453, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). However, the principle of non-discrimination has been given effect, in the area of , by Article 45 TFEU (judgment of 10 October 2019, Krah, C\u2011703/17, EU:C:2019:850, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited), which provision, as stated in paragraph 44 of the present judgment, finds particular expression, in the specific area of the grant of social advantages, in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011. Consequently, no interpretation of Article 18 TFEU is needed."], "id": "de90b6b6-dadf-4760-be60-4be1db7c84b0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Those differences in treatment depending on the national or \u2018foreign\u2019 origin of the financial support in question, and therefore on the place where the residence or registered office of the natural or legal persons granting the support is established, constitute indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality (see, by analogy, in the field of , judgments of 24 September 1998, Commission v France, C\u201135/97, EU:C:1998:431, paragraphs 38 and 39, and of 5 May 2011, Commission v Germany, C\u2011206/10, EU:C:2011:283, paragraphs 37 and 38)."], "id": "ba4bef82-1d2f-4d43-862e-c1180c880e57", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Article 7(2) and Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a national of another Member State and his or her minor children, all of whom have, in the former Member State, a right of residence based on Article 10 of that regulation, by virtue of those children attending school in that State, are automatically and in all circumstances excluded from entitlement to benefits to cover their subsistence costs. That interpretation is not called into question by Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC."], "id": "209ac8b8-7865-4612-84c8-b8d112e46302", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, if the Luxembourg pension received by Mr Jacob results from a salaried activity, it is, indeed, Article 45 TFEU concerning the which is relevant. If, on the other hand, Mr Jacob carried out non-salaried activity in Luxembourg, it would be the freedom of establishment provided for in Article 49 TFEU which would apply. It is for the referring court to confirm which provision of the FEU Treaty is applicable."], "id": "8420ac90-a08e-4d7c-92be-d08543928924", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has held that the aim of Regulation No 1612/68, namely , required, \u2018for such freedom to be guaranteed in compliance with the principles of liberty and dignity, the best possible conditions for the integration of the Community worker\u2019s family in the society of the host Member State\u2019 and has stated that the link between successful integration and the possibility for a child of a migrant worker to go to school and pursue further education in the host Member State is an essential one."], "id": "d3991067-2e1d-4182-8418-8937fc5fc07f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Assuming that national legislation such as that referred to in paragraph 80 of the present judgment were liable to restrict also the free movement of goods, in so far as dockers also carry out work relating to the transport of goods transiting through ports, it is clear that such a restriction would be entirely secondary in relation to restrictions on the and services, as well as on the freedom of establishment."], "id": "d84500ab-7dbc-4e21-811b-d355a65e1fe1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that, in so far as legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not take into account in full previous periods of equivalent activity completed in a Member State other than the Member State of origin of a migrant worker, it is likely to render less attractive the , in breach of Article 45(1) TFEU, and, accordingly, constitutes an obstacle to that freedom."], "id": "9333dba8-1c34-417b-89a1-38263a6b30c2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Moreover, it should be borne in mind that Regulation No 1408/71 was adopted on the basis of Article 51 of the EEC Treaty (later Article 51 of the EC Treaty and, subsequently, after amendment, Article 42 EC, now Article 48 TFEU), which empowered the Council of the European Union to adopt such measures in the field of social security as were necessary to provide , making arrangements to that end to secure the aggregation for migrant workers and their dependants, for the purposes of acquiring and retaining the right to benefits and of calculating the amount of benefits, of \u201call periods\u201d taken into account under the laws of the several countries.\u2019"], "id": "d1524cca-df47-40d9-b42a-92d578aae378", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In order to answer that question, it should be recalled, with regard to Article 45 TFEU, first, that any Union national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised the right to and who has been employed in a Member State other than that of residence falls within the scope of that provision (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 December 2002, de Groot, C\u2011385/00, EU:C:2002:750, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "007e8b93-15ae-41c6-ba5e-f6f54ca233e1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["127. With regard to the relationship between those two regulations, the scopes of which overlap, (105) the Court has noted that Regulation No 492/2011 is of general application as regards the free movement of workers. (106) It thus reiterated the solution adopted when examining an action for failure to fulfil obligations, which the Commission based on both infringement of Regulation No 1408/71, on account of the setting of a residence criterion for sickness benefits to be exportable, and the ability to justify the choice of that criterion, in the light of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on within the Community. (107) Therefore, the application of Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 may be reserved to situations which are not covered by Regulation No 492/2011, even though Regulation No 883/2004 contains specific provisions prohibiting residence rules, in particular in Article 7. (108)"], "id": "11cffb9c-95d9-45e3-a16a-b089493d0197", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Second, the possibility, mentioned by the referring court, that the withdrawal of the family allowances for development aid workers may hinder the and, as the case may be, make it less attractive, or even entail a decline in demand for the profession of \u2018development aid worker\u2019, even though that would be have to be verified on the facts, cannot, in any case, give rise to a situation that is incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU. As is clear from paragraphs 71 and 72 of this judgment, those provisions do not harmonise the social security schemes of the Member States, since Member States retain the power to organise their social security systems in accordance with EU law and the FEU Treaty offers no guarantee to a worker that extending his activities into more than one Member State or transferring them to another Member State will be neutral as regards social security. Given the disparities in the social security legislation of the Member States, such an extension or transfer may be more or less advantageous or disadvantageous for the worker in terms of social welfare. It follows that, even where its application is thus less favourable, such legislation is still compatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU if it does not place the worker concerned at a disadvantage as compared with those who pursue all their activities in the Member State where it applies or as compared with those who were already subject to it there, and if it does not simply result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return (judgment of 14 March 2019, Vester, C\u2011134/18, EU:C:2019:212, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "629c3320-5ed4-411d-a5b1-5eb782af6789", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, the fact that the applicants in the main proceedings were unable, when they moved to another Member State, to receive family allowances from their Member State of origin and that the family allowances received in the event of their return to that Member State are not, for two years, in line with their income received during that period cannot constitute less favourable treatment contrary to and, more particularly, Article 45 TFEU."], "id": "d18dde1d-1c67-4d2e-9940-2c709f979b5f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, as the Advocate General noted in point 56 of his Opinion, maximising the relevant factors for the calculation of the theoretical amount is consistent with the settled case-law according to which Article 46(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, which was succeeded by Article 52(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, must be interpreted in the light of the objective laid down in Article 48 TFEU. That objective is to contribute, in particular by the aggregation of periods of insurance, residence or employment, to the establishment of , entailing that migrant workers must neither lose rights to social security benefits nor suffer a reduction in the amount thereof as a result of the fact that they have exercised their right to freedom of movement (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 August 1994, Reichling, C\u2011406/93, EU:C:1994:320, paragraphs 21 and 24; of 17 December 1998, Lustig, C\u2011244/97, EU:C:1998:619, paragraphs 30 and 31; and of 21 February 2013, Salgado Gonz\u00e1lez, C\u2011282/11, EU:C:2013:86, paragraph 43)."], "id": "497eeda5-e80d-4511-98ae-a2afa94eec60", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["133. To my knowledge, the Court did not expressly refer to that condition when applying Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004. However, the Court\u2019s only decision on Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 which set out in similar terms the principle of equal treatment is, in my view, transposable. (116) Moreover, I note that the Court has interpreted Article 67 of Regulation No 883/2004, which is intended to ensure that a worker is not deterred from exercising his or her right to freedom of movement, (117) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, and has assessed the justifications put forward by the referring court on that basis alone. I infer from this that the choice by a Member State to use a residence criterion which applies to family benefits may also be justified on account of the rule of the coordinated interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, resulting from their common basis, namely Article 45 TFEU, laying down the objective of guaranteeing . (118) (b) Justification for indirect discrimination"], "id": "9f8b10cf-d5ba-4087-ad9b-691a84f2ebff", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted that national legislation which makes the possibility for a recognised docker to work in a port area different from that in which he or she obtained his or her recognition subject to conditions \u2013 whether they be fixed by legislation or by a CLA \u2013 constitutes a restriction both on the and on the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services."], "id": "f15fae32-0820-4eed-85e5-7f926f0e4c8b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["With regard, in the fifth place, to the automatic recognition of all dockers employed as dockers \u2018included in the pool\u2019, the Raad van State (Council of State) notes that, according to Katoen Natie Bulk Terminals and General Services Antwerp, that measure deprives employers of the right to engage a quality workforce by concluding directly with the dockers a permanent contract guaranteeing them job security in accordance with the rules of general labour law, since those workers remain \u2018automatically\u2019 included in the pool. The question arises as to whether such a measure must be regarded as adequate and proportionate in the light of the objective pursued, and therefore in accordance with the freedom of establishment and the ."], "id": "15328696-eccb-44a7-8876-7a4b9d6ce10a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 July 2020, the European Commission asks the Court to declare that, by adjusting the amount of family benefits, as well as social and tax advantages, for the children of persons entitled to such benefits in Austria to reflect the cost of living in the Member State in which the child resides, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Articles 4, 7 and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1), and, second, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1)."], "id": "2f776a3e-2b9a-4f46-999e-fc63ebb25634", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["However, the principle of the enshrined in Article 45 TFEU does not require professional experience which, without being equivalent, is merely beneficial for the performance of teaching duties to be taken into account in full, in so far as it is not necessary to ensure that both the workers employed by the Land of Lower Saxony who have never performed their right of free movement and those who have are subject to the same conditions for the purposes of their salary grading. The consideration that a worker, whose full equivalent professional experience which might be completed in a Member State other than the Member State of origin will be taken into account for the purposes of the initial salary grading as a teacher in a school of the Land of Lower Saxony, will be dissuaded from leaving his or her Member State of origin if professional experience of any other type which might be acquired in that other Member State will not be taken into account in full, seems to rely on a set of events too uncertain and indirect to be capable of being regarded as hindering the freedom of movement for workers (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 October 2019, Krah, C\u2011703/17, EU:C:2019:850, paragraph 50)."], "id": "78819a4f-19b6-43fa-aa40-9dd09ac47924", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["1. By its application, the European Commission requests that the Court declare that, by putting in place: (1) an adjustment mechanism in relation to the family allowance and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under: \u2013 Articles 4, 7 and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (2) and \u2013 Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union, (3) and, (2) an adjustment mechanism in relation to the Familienbonus Plus (Family Bonus Plus tax credit, \u2018the Family Bonus Plus\u2019), the sole earner\u2019s allowance, the single parent\u2019s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments, for migrant workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011."], "id": "2b0659cb-b382-4f99-81c5-3e73eb2c69af", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Second, such an interpretation, which has the effect of not extending the scope of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, satisfies the requirement that that provision be interpreted strictly and in accordance with the provisions of the FEU Treaty, including those relating to citizenship of the Union and , as referred to in the judgment in Jobcenter Krefeld."], "id": "4bb59644-7b17-4cde-9242-3edc86808b4e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["77. I propose that the Court of Justice answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the \u00d6verklaganden\u00e4mnden f\u00f6r studiest\u00f6d (National Board of Appeal for Student Aid, Sweden) as follows: Neither Article 45 TFEU nor Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union precludes a Member State (the country of origin) from laying down a requirement that the child of a (former) migrant worker, after the latter returned to his or her country of origin, have a connection with the country of origin in order to grant that child student financial aid to study abroad in the other EU Member State where the child\u2019s parent previously worked (the host country), in a situation: (i) where that child has never resided in the country of origin, but lives from his or her birth in the host country; and (ii) where the country of origin subjects its other nationals, who do not fulfil the condition of residence and who apply for student financial aid to study in another EU Member State, to the same requirement that there be a connection to the country of origin."], "id": "7b55d7e0-6ac3-456e-9513-7c041248a298", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which makes the payment of school transport costs by a Land subject to a requirement of residence in the territory of that Land constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it is intrinsically liable to affect frontier workers more than national workers."], "id": "ba2a0d02-f658-4542-bf73-1d0cf6845103", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Without prejudice to the considerations I shall set out below regarding the fight against abuse and fraud in this sector, it must be recalled that \u2018the purpose of [Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004] is, in particular, to promote freedom to provide services for the benefit of undertakings which avail themselves of it by sending workers to Member States other than that in which they are established. It is aimed at overcoming obstacles likely to impede and also at encouraging economic interpenetration whilst avoiding administrative complications, in particular for workers and undertakings\u2019. The activity of a TEA also fits into that context."], "id": "4e2eaef9-21f7-4a90-8c5e-47078dcf00ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, the dispute in the main proceedings concerns a German national who works in Germany but resides in France. The connection with EU law is therefore the residence of that worker in a Member State other than that of which he is a national. Since that worker has exercised his freedom of movement, he is therefore entitled to rely \u2014 as against the Member State of which he is a national \u2014 on Regulation No 492/2011, which is intended to implement within the European Union, and in particular on Article 7(2) of that regulation."], "id": "3925a652-af0a-45e1-a9b7-20e685d64cdf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, as is apparent from the case-law of the Court, national legislation tightening the conditions for the family reunification of Turkish workers lawfully residing in the Member State in question, in relation to the conditions applicable at the time of the entry into force in that Member State of Decision No 1/80, constitutes a \u2018new restriction\u2019, within the meaning of Article 13 of that decision, on the exercise by such Turkish workers of the in that Member State (judgment of 29 March 2017, Tekdemir, C\u2011652/15, EU:C:2017:239, paragraph 31)."], "id": "8f6df4b9-02ca-4c4c-97fc-734f2ecbb6d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Similarly, the Court has held that a worker who was carrying on an activity as an employed person in his or her host Member State at the time of the accession of his or her Member State of origin to the European Union and has continued to carry on such activity after that accession may, from the date of accession, rely on Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on within the Community (OJ 1968 L 257, p. 2), the wording of which has been reproduced in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, unless the transitional arrangements provided for in the Act of Accession provide otherwise (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 1989, Lopes da Veiga, 9/88, EU:C:1989:346, paragraphs 9, 10 and 19)."], "id": "f9fba6f4-d00d-4b3a-80c6-22376e1f0641", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["According to settled case-law, freedom of establishment for nationals of one Member State on the territory of another Member State includes the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons (see, inter alia, judgments of 28 January 1986, Commission v France, 270/83, EU:C:1986:37, paragraph 13; of 29 April 1999, Royal Bank of Scotland, C\u2011311/97, EU:C:1999:216, paragraph 22; and of 1 October 2009, Gaz de France \u2014 Berliner Investissement, C\u2011247/08, EU:C:2009:600, paragraph 54). By contrast, any national of the European Union who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised the right to and who has been employed in a Member State other than that of his residence comes within the scope of Article 45 TFEU (see, inter alia, judgments of 12 December 2002, de Groot, C\u2011385/00, EU:C:2002:750, paragraph 76, and of 28 February 2013, Petersen, C\u2011544/11, EU:C:2013:124, paragraph 34)."], "id": "56c51d93-e537-4f60-911e-0848aca9aadb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, although the interpretation of the rules on transitional periods in paragraph 56 above may, as the Federal Republic of Germany claims, give rise to a restriction on the enshrined in Article 45 TFEU and to a restriction on the exercise of the fundamental right to pursue a freely chosen occupation under Article 15(1) of the Charter, it should be noted that those freedoms are not absolute and may be restricted under certain conditions."], "id": "7b87ed1a-fea6-4cc7-a867-1ec323beef78", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of: Article 18 TFEU; Articles 7 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1); Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and corrigenda OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34), and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1)."], "id": "b1c1462b-da5b-4325-9baf-f2a06b886ab7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it is apparent from settled case-law of the Court that the \u2018standstill\u2019 clause contained in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 prohibits generally the introduction of any new national measure having the object or effect of making the exercise by a Turkish national of the on national territory subject to conditions more restrictive than those which applied at the time when Decision No 1/80 entered into force with regard to the Member State concerned (judgment of 29 March 2017, Tekdemir, C\u2011652/15, EU:C:2017:239, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "c42472db-019a-4c1b-9795-dc00bdbf8fe2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["On the autonomous application, by comparison with provisions of EU law, such as those of Directive 2004/38, of Article 10 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1), which allows the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State, together with the parent who is their primary carer, to rely on that provision without being required to satisfy the \u2018sufficient resources\u2019 and \u2018comprehensive sickness insurance cover\u2019 conditions, see the judgment in Jobcenter Krefeld (paragraphs 38 and 39 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "6872ce1b-91e4-40fa-92dd-729e6ce256b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, a national of a Member State who, while maintaining his employment in that State, transfers his residence to another Member State, comes within the scope of the provisions of the FEU Treaty on , and hence of Regulation No 492/2011 (see, to that effect, as regards Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), repealed and replaced by Regulation No 492/2011, judgment of 18 July 2007, Hartmann, C\u2011212/05, EU:C:2007:437, paragraph 19)."], "id": "13520614-f474-44a2-9e07-c42e1446ba31", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["40 It is true that the earlier acts that were codified by Directive 2004/38 do not appear to contain that reference to a \u2018household\u2019, but rather referred to the requirement that the persons \u2018live under the same roof\u2019 (see, for example, Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) or Article 1(2) of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14)). The applicant in the main proceedings infers from that fact that Directive 2004/38, recital 3 of which states that it intends \u2018to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens\u2019, cannot be interpreted more restrictively as compared with the situation under the law before that directive entered into force."], "id": "15765173-ca64-4c71-8170-94c9dd0538a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["57. With these factors in mind, I consider that the concept of \u2018involvement\u2019 ought to be understood as including eligibility for the administration or management posts of a trade union. I do not see why the principle of equal treatment should apply to such eligibility in and not in combatting discrimination on grounds of age."], "id": "1aad8f54-4645-4429-aec7-8af77d9bdac2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Equal treatment \u2014 Income tax \u2014 Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation \u2014 Pension received in a Member State other than that of residence \u2014 Method of calculating the exemption in the Member State of residence \u2014 Loss of part of the benefit of certain tax advantages)"], "id": "13ad02a8-b43e-44a2-9f2c-e61f4187e010", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 Internal markets for electricity and natural gas \u2013 Directive 2009/72/EC \u2013 Article 2(21) \u2013 Article 19(3), (5) and (8) \u2013 Article 37(1)(a) and (6)(a) and (b) \u2013 Directive 2009/73/EC \u2013 Article 2(20) \u2013 Article 19(3), (5) and (8) \u2013 Article 41(1)(a) and (6)(a) and (b) \u2013 Concept of a \u2018vertically integrated undertaking\u2019 \u2013 Effective unbundling of networks from the activities of production and supply of electricity and natural gas \u2013 Independent transmission operator \u2013 Independence of the staff and the management of the transmission system operator \u2013 Transitional periods \u2013 Shares held in the capital of the vertically integrated undertaking \u2013 National regulatory authorities \u2013 Independence \u2013 Exclusive powers \u2013 Article 45 TFEU \u2013 \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 15 \u2013 Right to engage in work and to pursue an occupation \u2013 Article 17 \u2013 Right to property \u2013 Article 52(1) \u2013 Restrictions \u2013 Principle of democracy)"], "id": "83f3ca20-43a4-46df-8361-56e8b80acb3a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, the legislation at issue in the main proceedings leads to a partitioning of the employment market for school teachers in the territory of the Land of Lower Saxony and runs counter to the very principle of (see, by analogy, judgment of 30 September 2003, K\u00f6bler, C\u2011224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 86, and order of 10 March 2005, Marhold, C\u2011178/04, not published, EU:C:2005:164, paragraph 38)."], "id": "a28b51c3-9328-40d8-afd6-acac486d8273", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In order to answer this question, in the first place, it should be pointed out, on the one hand, that any EU national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, exercises the right to and who is employed in a Member State other than that of his residence comes within the scope of Article 45 TFEU, a provision which Regulation No 492/2011 is intended to put into concrete terms (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 February 2006, Ritter-Coulais, C\u2011152/03, EU:C:2006:123, paragraph 31)."], "id": "5b149d1e-e02f-45cb-bd69-2b9bc14c0c20", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, those rules do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued. The restrictions on the guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU and the right to pursue a freely chosen profession guaranteed in Article 15(1) of the Charter, which result from all the specific rules relating to that operator, including rules on transitional periods, and function to ensure the operator\u2019s independence, are limited in time such that they only produce effects for a clearly circumscribed period."], "id": "bab3dd3a-c5d0-4ce1-b884-458f0184c571", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The objective pursued by both Regulation No 1612/68 and Regulation No 492/2011, namely to ensure , requires the best possible conditions for the integration of the worker\u2019s family in the host Member State, and a refusal to allow the parents caring for the children to remain in the host Member State while those children are attending school might deprive the children of a right granted to them by the EU legislature (judgment of 23 February 2010, Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department, C\u2011310/08, EU:C:2010:80, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "96c320d1-025f-43d0-a251-5a54ca27c959", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the , guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU, the Raad van State (Council of State) observes that Katoen Natie Bulk Terminals and General Services Antwerp are Belgian logistics companies operating in Belgian port areas which, in order to achieve their social objective, seek to be able to employ dockers other than recognised dockers, irrespective of their nationality. In their capacity as employers wishing to employ, in the Member State in which they are established, workers who are nationals of another Member State, those companies can thus invoke the freedom of movement for workers, enshrined in Article 45 TFEU. In so far as it appears that the conditions set out in the Royal Decree of 2004 make it complicated, for nationals of other Member States, to perform dock work in the Belgian territory and impede the freedom of movement for workers, employers such as the companies referred to should also be able to oppose such legislation. That also shows that the dispute pending before that court cannot be reduced to a purely internal situation."], "id": "171b6dd5-2e39-4f3a-87b7-d64e4fa3b42e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The last aforementioned judgment concerned the free movement of workers under what is now Article 45 TFEU. A British national, having pleaded guilty to a criminal offence, had been sentenced to move from England to Northern Ireland and not to return to England or Wales. All the facts were therefore confined to the United Kingdom. In such a situation it was fairly straightforward for the Court to rule that Article 45 TFEU \u2018does not \u2026 aim to restrict the power of the Member States to lay down restrictions, within their own territory, on the freedom of movement of all persons subject to their jurisdiction in implementation of domestic criminal law\u2019 and that \u2018the provisions of the Treaty on cannot therefore be applied to situations which are wholly internal to a Member State, in other words, where there is no factor connecting them to any of the situations envisaged by [EU] law\u2019."], "id": "7b92a48a-1954-4397-8027-d5d8dd628876", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["Such an interpretation therefore ensures the effectiveness of Article 10 of Regulation No 492/2011, as required by the Court\u2019s case-law. Moreover, it appears to be fully consistent with the initial objective of that regulation, which is to ensure . Which worker would leave his country of origin, and endeavour to integrate himself as far as possible into the society of the host Member State, including economically, and to educate his children there if he knows that, if his situation becomes less comfortable, without being able to count on the solidarity of the Member State which welcomed him, he would necessarily have to return to his country of origin and remove his children from the educational and linguistic system into which they had been integrated up until that point? In addition, that interpretation appears to be in line with the Court\u2019s case-law which excludes the right of residence of the children and the parent who is their primary carer from compliance with the condition of self-sufficiency."], "id": "179855cc-8d30-4261-9e00-325f1e241c28", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["1. By the present reference for a preliminary ruling, the \u00d6verklaganden\u00e4mnden f\u00f6r studiest\u00f6d (National Board of Appeal for Student Aid, Sweden) seeks an interpretation of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on within the Union. (2) The reference arose in the context of an appeal by the applicant in the main proceedings, MCM, against the Centrala studiest\u00f6dsn\u00e4mnden (Swedish Board of Student Finance, which is responsible for providing financial aid to students; \u2018the CSN\u2019) in relation to MCM\u2019s claim to obtain student financial aid from the Swedish State for his studies in Spain. I. The facts giving rise to the dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling"], "id": "52d3296a-b9a4-4733-979c-632e26c3c90a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 48 TFEU requires, to provide , that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopt the measures necessary to aggregate all periods of insurance completed under the laws of the several countries not only for the purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit, but also for the purpose of calculating the amount of benefit."], "id": "d6df5825-54bd-4f2f-9c00-31253b0637a6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the , it follows from settled case-law that any EU national working in a Member State other than his Member State of origin and who has accepted a post in an international organisation comes within the scope of Article 45 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 March 1989, Echternach and Moritz, 389/87 and 390/87, EU:C:1989:130, paragraph 11; of 6 October 2016, Adrien and Others, C\u2011466/15, EU:C:2016:749, paragraph 24; and of 31 May 2017, U, C\u2011420/15, EU:C:2017:408, paragraph 13)."], "id": "4e4e69b9-99ac-4c13-80e5-623c53c8945a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["As regards that situation, it must be recalled that the Court has previously held on several occasions that, as a derogation from the principle of equal treatment laid down in the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU, of which Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38 is merely a specific expression, Article 24(2) must be interpreted strictly, and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, including those relating to Union citizenship and (judgment of 21 February 2013, N., C\u201146/12, EU:C:2013:97, paragraph 33)."], "id": "bbc5d534-8e57-45d9-b1b5-ecd8c707e258", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["14 In those circumstances, the Giudice di pace di Massa (Magistrates\u2019 Court, Massa, Italy) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018(1) Is the concept of the prohibition of \u201cdiscrimination on grounds of nationality\u201d under Article 18 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are prohibited from enacting any legislation that could, indirectly, covertly and/or materially, cause difficulties for nationals of other Member States? (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, could Article 93(1-bis) of [the Highway Code], concerning the prohibition on driving with foreign number plates (registered in anybody\u2019s name) after 60 days of residence in Italy, cause difficulties for nationals of other Member States (who own cars with foreign number plates) and consequently be discriminatory on grounds of nationality? (3) Are the following concepts: a. \u201cright to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States\u201d, as referred to in Article 21 TFEU; b. \u201cinternal market\u201d which \u201cshall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties\u201d, as referred to in Article 26 TFEU; c. \u201cfreedom of movement for workers \u2026 secured within the Union\u201d, as referred to in Article 45 TFEU; d. \u201c[prohibited] restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State \u2026\u201d, as referred to in Articles 49 to 55 TFEU; [and] e. \u201crestrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union \u2026 prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended\u201d, as referred to in Articles 56 to 62 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that national provisions that could, indirectly, covertly and/or materially, limit or hinder the ability of European citizens to exercise the right of freedom of movement and residence within the territory of the Member States, the right of within the Union, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, or in any way affect those rights, are also prohibited? (4) If the third question is answered in the affirmative, could Article 93(1-bis) of [the Highway Code], concerning the prohibition of driving with foreign number plates (registered in anybody\u2019s name) after 60 days of residence in Italy, limit, hinder or in any way affect the exercise of the right of freedom of movement and residence in the territory of the Member States, the right of freedom of movement for workers within the Union, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services?\u2019 Consideration of the questions referred"], "id": "759efa49-6942-478d-88f0-ffd24be5b947", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["As regards whether national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes an obstacle to the within the European Union, it must be borne in mind that Article 45(1) TFEU precludes any measure which, albeit applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hinder or render less attractive the exercise by EU nationals of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 April 2008, Gouvernement de la Communaut\u00e9 fran\u00e7aise et gouvernement wallon, C\u2011212/06, EU:C:2008:178, paragraph 45, and of 6 October 2016, Adrien and Others, C\u2011466/15, EU:C:2016:749, paragraph 26)."], "id": "64a588b2-60a3-459b-9f4d-d46bb388311e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Article 45 TFEU \u2013 Social security for migrant workers \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 \u2013 Article 1(i) \u2013 \u2013 Equal treatment \u2013 Social advantages \u2013 Directive 2004/38 \u2013 Article 2(2) \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 \u2013 Article 7(2) \u2013 Family allowance \u2013 Concept of \u2018members of the family\u2019 \u2013 Exclusion of the children of the spouses of non-resident workers \u2013 Difference in treatment in comparison with the children of the spouses of resident workers \u2013 Justification)"], "id": "ce6eb5b3-3121-46eb-975f-5476d37a14ec", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that implies the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 1991, Antonissen, C\u2011292/89, EU:C:1991:80, paragraph 13), that right having been codified by the EU legislature in Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2004/38. In that regard, it must be pointed out that the effectiveness of Article 45 TFEU is secured in so far as EU legislation or, in its absence, the legislation of a Member State gives persons concerned a reasonable time in which to apprise themselves, in the territory of the host Member State, of offers of employment corresponding to their occupational qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 1991, Antonissen, C\u2011292/89, EU:C:1991:80, paragraph 16)."], "id": "30c0da5f-fd7e-48bc-ab81-27f8f604c617", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["That interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, read together with Article 10 thereof, contributes to the attainment of the objective pursued by that regulation, namely promoting , since it ensures the creation of the best possible conditions for the integration of the family members of Union citizens who have made use of that freedom and have worked in the host Member State."], "id": "c6e7231e-1a66-4af5-a126-e898d6031cfb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination, equal treatment, the protection of competition and , referred to in Articles 45, 49 to 56 and 106 TFEU and in Articles 15 and 16 of the [Charter], and the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness inherent in those principles, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991, which, in the event of the transfer of ownership of a municipal pharmacy, confers a right of pre-emption on the employees of the pharmacy in question?\u2019"], "id": "47bab645-e740-4b29-af06-eaece15af2f1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["As has been pointed out in paragraph 33 above, the standstill clause set out in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 prohibits generally the introduction of any new national measure having the object or effect of making the exercise by a Turkish national of the on national territory subject to conditions more restrictive than those which applied at the time when Decision No 1/80 entered into force with regard to the Member State concerned (judgment of 29 March 2017, Tekdemir, C\u2011652/15, EU:C:2017:239, paragraph 25)."], "id": "df6bc9bf-f117-4404-8a94-154181e5b528", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In this instance, it must be observed that, since the contested directive amends certain provisions of Directive 96/71 or inserts new provisions into that directive, Directive 96/71 is part of the legal context of the contested directive, as attested by, in particular, recitals 1 and 4 of the contested directive, the first of which states that the Union is further developing the fundamental principles of the internal market, namely , freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, the aim being to guarantee a level playing field for businesses and respect for the rights of workers, and the second of which states that, more than 20 years after its adoption, it is necessary to assess whether Directive 96/71 still strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, the need to promote the freedom to provide services and to ensure a level playing field, and, on the other, the need to protect the rights of posted workers."], "id": "ac918a10-ea67-4b4b-891d-d9a20cb041c8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["48. The increase in within the European Union and the resulting indiscriminate export of family allowances and child tax credit, irrespective of the State in which the children for whom the benefits were granted were permanently resident, led to increasing distortions in that social security scheme. If the child lived in a Member State with low purchasing power, the effect of the support exceeded the relief sought. (28) Conversely, if the child lived in a Member State with a higher purchasing power, the relief fell short of the targeted measure."], "id": "fc0db620-9d3c-454d-ae23-a53fc898d782", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted, at the outset, that both Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 constitute standstill clauses which generally prohibit the introduction of any new national measure having the object or effect of making the exercise by a Turkish national of the on national territory subject to conditions more restrictive than those which applied at the time when those decisions entered into force with regard to the Member State concerned (judgment of 7 August 2018, Y\u00f6n, C\u2011123/17, EU:C:2018:632, paragraph 39)."], "id": "2d5961bf-7a2b-4cfe-b5f6-49df18fac09b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["While one of the aims of Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, the scope of which is defined in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, is to promote freedom to provide services guaranteed by Articles 56 to 62 TFEU for the benefit of undertakings which avail themselves of it by sending workers to Member States other than that in which they are established, that provision also pursues the aim referred to in the preceding paragraph, as is apparent from paragraphs 34 to 36 of this judgment, by laying down a rule derogating from the rule of the Member State of employment, laid down in Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, in order to avoid the complications which might result from the application of that latter rule and thus to overcome obstacles likely to impede (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2018, Walltopia, C\u2011451/17, EU:C:2018:861, paragraphs 37 and 38 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "20aa54cc-162d-45d1-9684-3ee75d0d8f42", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, in tightening the conditions for the admission of the spouse of a Turkish national \u2014 that national being a lawful worker on the Danish labour market \u2014 for the purposes of family reunification, the national measure at issue in the main proceedings constitutes, as the Advocate General observed in point 15 of his Opinion, a \u2018new restriction\u2019, within the meaning of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, on B\u2019s exercise of the in the Member State concerned."], "id": "ca72942d-94ec-414e-8d49-9927cd86d7ce", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The restrictions that the rules on transitional periods impose on the , enshrined in Article 45 TFEU, where the relevant parts of undertakings of the VIU are located in several Member States, and the fundamental right to pursue a freely chosen occupation, enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Charter, where the parts are confined to a single Member State, would, moreover, be justified only if Article 19(3) and (8) of Directives 2009/72 and 2009/73 were to apply exclusively to transfers of staff."], "id": "b2b0db6e-3b2e-4460-b2ef-9ab7847481ce", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["The Court began by recalling that the laid down in Article 48(1) to (3) of the EEC Treaty (now Article 45(1) to (3) TFEU) forms one of the foundations of the Union, that the provisions laying down that freedom must be given a broad interpretation and that a strict interpretation of that article would jeopardise the actual chances that a national of a Member State who is seeking employment will find it in another Member State, and would, as a result, make that provision ineffective. The Court also stated that Article 48(3) of the EEC Treaty (now Article 45(3) TFEU) enumerates, in a non-exhaustive way, certain rights benefiting nationals of Member States in the context of the free movement of workers and that this freedom entails the right for such nationals to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment."], "id": "b886777e-ee32-46b7-b63c-c2819d038eb9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of movement for workers", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination, equal treatment, the protection of competition and , referred to in Articles 45, 49 to 56 and 106 TFEU and in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter, and the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness inherent in those principles, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991, which, in the event of the transfer of ownership of a municipal pharmacy, confers a right of pre-emption on the employees of the pharmacy in question?\u2019"], "id": "0031cbe0-fe17-413d-9331-e851dd7127f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["3. The distinguishing feature of the case lies in the fact that the applicant\u2019s credit contract was concluded in 2007, and thus before the Republic of Croatia\u2019s to the EU. However, the replacement of the unfair terms by virtue of the abovementioned legislative reform did not take place until after the accession. Against that background, the case raises the question of the applicability ratione temporis of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 in the main proceedings with regard to the restitutory effect of the statutory provision in question. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether a provision adopted after the accession of a Member State must also guarantee that restitutory effect in respect of unfair terms in a contract concluded before the accession. II. Legal framework"], "id": "5124321e-31cd-488b-bcba-88b777e5e9a5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The Kingdom of Spain states that, in the contested decision, the Commission implicitly treated Kosovo in the same way as a \u2018third country\u2019 within the meaning of Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, even though it had no legal basis for doing so. It observes that the fact that Kosovo concluded an SAA with the European Union does not make it a \u2018third country\u2019 within the meaning of that provision and that Kosovo cannot be treated like EEA or EFTA States or candidates for . It also states that Article 2 of the Kosovo SAA confirms that approach."], "id": "d987e2a9-6367-4855-903b-bc8c31df8c9e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Treaty of of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union \u2013 Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania \u2013 Articles 37 and 38 \u2013 Appropriate measures \u2013 Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption \u2013 Decision 2006/928/EC \u2013 Legal nature and effects of the cooperation and verification mechanism and of the reports established by the Commission on the basis of that mechanism \u2013 Rule of law \u2013 Judicial independence \u2013 Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU \u2013 Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Laws and government emergency ordinances adopted in Romania in the course of 2018 and 2019 concerning the organisation of the judicial system and the liability of judges \u2013 Interim appointment to management positions of the Judicial Inspectorate \u2013 Establishment of a section within the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office for the investigation of offences committed within the judicial system \u2013 Financial liability of the State and personal liability of judges in the event of judicial error)"], "id": "775aec5c-28ae-4242-8516-1983a041a688", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["71. I agree with the PVA and the Austrian Government that, at the time when the Appellant relocated to Belgium in 1987 and then Hungary in 1991, she could not have possibly thought that she was exercising her right to freedom of movement pursuant to Article 21 TFEU and that, as a result, she may be entitled to have the periods that she completed in those other Member States treated by the PVA as though they had been completed on the Austrian territory. By virtue of Article 2 of the Act of relating to the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, (37) the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions before accession did not become binding on Austria until 1 January 1995."], "id": "fd4f803b-fc27-4d64-a472-3e9116a2c4a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the exclusion from the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services, that exclusion having been introduced before the of the Member State concerned to the European Union and maintained thereafter, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112, and which means that a taxable person, who does not provide tourism services, is deprived of the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of such overnight accommodation and catering services which that taxable person re-invoices to other taxable persons."], "id": "8e0c4176-23c4-4caf-afb0-b0dc534e1059", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["See, in particular, judgment of 28 February 2019, Gradbeni\u0161tvo Korana (C\u2011579/17, EU:C:2019:162, paragraphs 46 and 47 and the case-law cited). I note that the case-law developed in relation to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by subsequent Conventions on the of new Member States to that convention, also applies to the Brussels Ia Regulation, whenever the provisions in question can be regarded as equivalent (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 March 2013, \u010cesk\u00e1 spo\u0159itelna (C\u2011419/11, EU:C:2013:165, paragraph 27), and of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking (C\u2011551/15, EU:C:2017:193, paragraph 31)). That is so in relation to the provisions which are relevant in the present case, namely Article 1(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation (see, in particular, judgments of 11 April 2013, Sapir and Others (C\u2011645/11, EU:C:2013:228, paragraphs 31 and 32), and of 15 November 2018, Kuhn (C\u2011308/17, EU:C:2018:911, paragraphs 31 and 32)) and Article 7(1) of that regulation (see, in particular, judgments of 14 March 2013, \u010cesk\u00e1 spo\u0159itelna (C\u2011419/11, EU:C:2013:165, paragraphs 43 and 44), and of 8 May 2019, Kerr (C\u201125/18, EU:C:2019:376, paragraph 20)). Accordingly, in the remainder of this Opinion, all references will be to the Brussels Ia Regulation, though I will cite the case-law relating to the instruments which preceded it."], "id": "934308d1-0bfe-47e9-937c-b47e16da0a42", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["9 Article 38 of the Act of provides: \u2018If there are serious shortcomings or any imminent risks of such shortcomings in Bulgaria or Romania in the transposition, state of implementation, or the application of the framework decisions or any other relevant commitments, instruments of cooperation and decisions relating to mutual recognition in the area of criminal law under Title VI of the EU Treaty and Directives and Regulations relating to mutual recognition in civil matters under Title IV of the EC Treaty, the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years after accession, upon the motivated request of a Member State or on its own initiative and after consulting the Member States, take appropriate measures and specify the conditions and modalities under which these measures are put into effect. These measures may take the form of temporary suspension of the application of relevant provisions and decisions in the relations between Bulgaria or Romania and any other Member State or Member States, without prejudice to the continuation of close judicial cooperation. The safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into force as of the first day of accession unless they provide for a later date. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted when the shortcomings are remedied. They may however be applied beyond the period specified in the first paragraph as long as these shortcomings persist. In response to progress made by the new Member State concerned in rectifying the identified shortcomings, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate after consulting the Member States. The Commission shall inform the Council in good time before revoking the safeguard measures, and it shall take duly into account any observations of the Council in this respect.\u2019"], "id": "58c092dd-03bc-4948-b53d-68d67b2b5d79", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["3 Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 1) (\u2018Regulation No 510/2006\u2019), provided, in the second subparagraph of Article 5(8) thereof, that the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania were to introduce the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with paragraphs (4) to (7) of Article 5 not later than one year after the date of ."], "id": "ef4559a3-a9ee-4e40-bb13-a1249a2f5022", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, that referring court wonders whether circumstances pertaining to the first judicial appointment of a judge in a Member State, at a time when that State was still governed by an undemocratic regime and prior to that State\u2019s to the European Union, and the ongoing retention of such a judge within the judiciary of that State after the fall of the Communist regime, is capable of casting doubts on the independence and impartiality of that judge for the purposes of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019) today. By its subsequent questions, that court, in essence, extends the same question also to subsequent judicial appointments in Poland, suggesting that there were other procedural issues that could have had an impact on those appointments. It would thus appear that the referring court is in fact asking whether it may start carrying out an indirect vetting process, with regard to the filtering of appeals on points of law to the national supreme court, of potentially all Polish judges appointed before 2018, in the name of judicial independence guaranteed under EU law."], "id": "f4225ee5-df8e-4510-92f3-119239012b42", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of environment, by reason of the of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193)."], "id": "45b9562b-f76f-4692-b000-88fe391dc4e8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["246 In this respect, it may be noted that certain rules of international law may prevent the European Union, by reason of its status as an international organisation, from acceding to an international agreement or, at the very least, may narrowly circumscribe such (see, to that effect, Opinion 2/91 (ILO Convention No 170) of 19 March 1993, EU:C:1993:106, point 5, and judgment of 20 November 2018, Commission v Council (Antarctic PMI), C\u2011626/15 and C\u2011659/16, EU:C:2018:925, paragraphs 128 to 130). Similarly, in some cases international law has precluded the conclusion with a third State of treaties applicable to a non-self-governing territory, in particular on account of infringements committed in that territory by that State (ICJ Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 concerning the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) \u2013 ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16, paragraphs 122 to 126)."], "id": "d60fc19c-f115-4d9b-a352-29fcafe376dc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["It is common ground that the arbitration clause in Article 9 of the BIT is, like the clause at issue in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C\u2011284/16, EU:C:2018:158), capable of leading to a situation in which an arbitration body rules in disputes which may concern the application or interpretation of EU law. Accordingly, that arbitration clause is such as to call into question not only the principle of mutual trust between the Member States but also the preservation of the particular nature of EU law, ensured by the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU. That clause is, therefore, incompatible with the principle of sincere cooperation set out in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU and has an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law enshrined, inter alia, in Article 344 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea, C\u2011284/16, EU:C:2018:158, paragraphs 58 and 59). Furthermore, as is confirmed by Article 4(1) of the Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, from the date of of the Republic of Poland to the European Union on 1 May 2004, Article 9 of the BIT could no longer serve as the basis for arbitration proceedings between an investor and that Member State."], "id": "a8b92c1e-5b2e-4750-a472-2ca625a4151e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["31. The agreement at issue in the present case is a facultative mixed agreement in the area of transport policy, an area in which the EU shares competence with its Member States. (16) No part of the agreement at issue belongs to an area of exclusive Member State competence, nor is that disputed in the case. In other words, all areas covered by the COTIF could be regulated by the European Union. A number of questions were indeed regulated internally to a large extent even before the EU\u2019s to the COTIF. (17)"], "id": "807a8010-5cad-4b19-84d7-66f32fa70fe7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["It therefore seems necessary to examine the national legislation in the light of the freedoms of movement and, in particular, the freedom of establishment. Indeed, as already said, Gibraltar is a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, and that EU law is in principle applicable to that territory pursuant to Article 355(3) TFEU. It is also clear and established that the exclusions of the territory of Gibraltar from the application of Union acts in certain areas of law, laid down in the 1972 Act of , do not relate to the freedom of establishment or to the free movement of capital, guaranteed by Articles 49 and 63 TFEU respectively. In other words, Articles 49 and 63 TFEU apply to the territory of Gibraltar by virtue of Article 355(3) TFEU."], "id": "ba5a875e-c6ff-4746-bd58-0aeb89d721b9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["The national provisions at issue entered the scope of EU law by virtue of being the national implementation, primarily, of the MCV Decision and, secondarily, also of the Act of . Thus, the Charter is applicable, shadowing and monitoring the exercise of national public power being implemented in order to meet Member State\u2019s EU obligations. This does not mean, of course, that the MCV Decision or the Act of Accession, even if they triggered the applicability of the Charter pursuant to its Article 51(1), would be the basis of an actual \u2018right or freedom\u2019 for private parties."], "id": "6805dde9-638e-4e35-82f3-b19294bc4d9d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the first part of the second plea, alleging infringement of Article 22(a) of Regulation 2016/1036 and of Section 15(a) and (d) of the Protocol on the of China to the WTO, which was examined in paragraphs 155 to 162 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that that protocol could not be relied on in order to challenge the legality of Regulation 2016/1036 and that it was also necessary to reject the alleged infringement of Article 22(a) of Regulation 2016/1036. As regards the second part of that plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 2(7) of Regulation 2016/1036, which was examined in paragraphs 163 to 178 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court rejected it as unfounded. As regards the third part of that plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, which was examined in paragraphs 179 to 182 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court also rejected it as unfounded."], "id": "58ac7807-d7a6-46eb-a39a-ecc1e06c4b7f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, as I have already indicated in point 126 of this Opinion, the attempt to link the commitments made during the Republic of Croatia\u2019s to the European Union with those values and principles is not to my mind sufficient for those values and principles to serve as an independent basis for the action. The line of argument based on failure to fulfil commitments made during the accession process must therefore also be rejected, since those commitments are not legal obligations under EU law and cannot be relied upon for the purposes of Article 259 TFEU."], "id": "947e47a3-6363-413e-806a-01eb5869c039", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["94. Article 2 of the Agreement reads as follows: \u2018Without prejudice to the object and the purpose of the Convention to promote, improve and facilitate international traffic by rail and without prejudice to its full application with respect to other Parties to the Convention, in their mutual relations, Parties to the Convention which are Member States of the Union shall apply Union rules and shall therefore not apply the rules arising from that Convention except in so far as there is no Union rule governing the particular subject concerned.\u2019 (78)"], "id": "e221ec31-6f01-4bea-beee-94cd2a221ad3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["At the hearing, European Food and Others and Viorel Micula and Others also claimed that Romania\u2019s to the European Union had not made it possible to establish mutual trust between that Member State and the other Member States, since its accession had been made conditional on the implementation of a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in that Member State to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption."], "id": "d16ff2ad-249e-4cf6-94b1-6662ad3b9662", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["59. The exercise of EU competence might happen internally, through the adoption of internal legislation, or externally, by the very fact of to the international agreement which regulates areas of shared competence. The ability to conclude a mixed agreement in an area of shared competence does not depend on the condition that such competence was already exercised internally. It may be exercised for the first time by concluding an international agreement."], "id": "e2a508ce-1c68-4407-8d33-9422d4c655e0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Notwithstanding the obligations under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, Hungary may maintain in force for seven years from the date of the prohibitions laid down in its legislation existing at the time of signature of this Act on the acquisition of agricultural land by natural persons who are non-residents or non-nationals of Hungary and by legal persons. In no instance may nationals of the Member States or legal persons formed in accordance with the laws of another Member State be treated less favourably in respect of the acquisition of agricultural land than at the date of signature of the Accession Treaty. \u2026"], "id": "ffb0d3e2-20c8-4bb5-bdc7-9a70f2320701", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Firstly, the Bulgarian Government submits that the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the questions asked by the Rayonen Sad Haskovo (Haskovo District Court) in so far as the first dismissal of the applicant occurred on 29 April 2004, namely before the of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union on 1 January 2007. The Court would not have jurisdiction to reply to a question on the interpretation of EU law referred by a Member State court where the factual circumstances to which EU law applies occurred before the accession of that Member State to the European Union."], "id": "01255150-ce1f-4bce-b4a8-bec986f6b07a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Article 2 TEU \u2013 Values of the European Union \u2013 Rule of law \u2013 Article 49 TEU \u2013 to the European Union \u2013 No reduction in the level of protection of the values of the European Union \u2013 Effective judicial protection \u2013 Article 19 TEU \u2013 Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Scope \u2013 Independence of the members of the judiciary of a Member State \u2013 Appointments procedure \u2013 Power of the Prime Minister \u2013 Involvement of a judicial appointments committee)"], "id": "1e96da98-439b-4226-8d87-1e1c9370c089", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["132. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should: \u2013 annul Article 3 of Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754 of 7 October 2019 on the of the European Union to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications; \u2013 annul Article 4 of Decision 2019/1754 in so far as it refers to the Member States; \u2013 maintain the effects of the annulled parts of Decision 2019/1754 in relation to the ratifications of the Geneva Act effected pursuant to that decision by the French Republic and Hungary, and in relation to such ratifications of or accessions to that act as may be effected, prior to the date of the Court\u2019s judgment, by the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Italian Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Slovak Republic, until the entry into force, within a reasonable time not exceeding six months from the date on which judgment is delivered, of a decision of the Council of the European Union; \u2013 order the Council, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission; \u2013 order the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Italian Republic, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs."], "id": "67cc1f3f-1a8b-401f-bf9c-dd0700d42d94", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["Article 37 of the Act of empowers the Commission to take appropriate measures in case of imminent risk that Romania would cause a breach in the functioning of the internal market by a failure to implement the commitments it has undertaken. Article 38 of the Act of Accession empowers the Commission to take appropriate measures in case of imminent risk of serious shortcomings in Romania in the transposition, state of implementation, or application of acts adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty and of acts adopted under Title IV of the EC Treaty."], "id": "354bce01-cdad-40b6-8b5b-7131c8f6c191", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["21 See, by analogy, judgment of 12 September 2002, Niemi (C\u2011351/00, EU:C:2002:480, paragraphs 54 and 55). In the same vein, Article 12(3) of Directive 2006/54 provides that, \u2018for Member States whose took place after 17 May 1990 and which were on 1 January 1994 Contracting Parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the date of 17 May 1990 \u2026 shall be replaced by 1 January 1994\u2019."], "id": "cd779cea-01f7-4d04-be60-d92ff39cbf6f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["163 In that context, it is important to note that, under Article 2 of the Act of , the acts adopted by the EU institutions before accession, which include Decision 2006/928, are to be binding on Romania from the date of its accession to the European Union and, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Treaty of Accession, are to remain in force until they are repealed (judgment of 18 May 2021, Asocia\u0163ia \u2018Forumul Judec\u0103torilor din Rom\u00e2nia\u2019 and Others, C\u201183/19, C\u2011127/19, C\u2011195/19, C\u2011291/19, C\u2011355/19 and C\u2011397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 163)."], "id": "9497cf38-16a4-483e-b081-c111ffb1b7d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the vehicle in question in the main proceedings was parked on 30 June 2012, that is to say, before the of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union. It follows, ratione temporis, that the Rome I and Rome II Regulations are not applicable and that the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the eighth question and the second part of the ninth question."], "id": "604eb6ae-1f96-4465-bc67-1997d8ba0774", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, the legal effects of the reports on Romania stem from the obligations flowing from the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU. Indeed, the reports constitute the basis for assessing whether Romania complies with its obligations with regard to the MCV benchmarks. Those reports contain specific recommendations to guide the efforts of Romania. As the Commission points out, the purpose of the recommendations is to support Romania\u2019s efforts to attain the objectives of the MCV Decision. Since the benchmarks give specific expression to the conditions of the Treaty of and because the MCV Decision was adopted on the basis of that act, Romania has an enhanced obligation of cooperation on the basis of the MCV. Sincere cooperation is therefore not limited to simply reporting the progress, but rather includes the obligation to take account of the recommendations when adopting legislative or administrative measures in the fields covered by the benchmarks of the MCV Decision."], "id": "816e4d49-5480-4a32-9341-5616225fcbc3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["I will address all of those questions in turn as follows. First, I shall start by confirming that the MCV Decision and the reports adopted by the Commission on its basis are indeed acts of the European Union (a). Second, I will examine whether the Treaty of constitutes the proper legal basis of the MCV Decision (b). Third, I will turn to the issue of legal value and effects of the MCV and of the Commission\u2019s reports adopted within its framework (c). Fourth, I will conclude this section by examining whether the national measures at issue in the present cases fall within the scope of the MCV (d)."], "id": "b88981a2-0fa6-4ac2-9eb5-1e35f13258dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In the third place, the line of argument by which the Commission relies, in support of the second part of its second ground of appeal, on a breach of the Europe Agreement must be rejected as inadmissible or ineffective. First, by that argument, the Commission necessarily accepts that the General Court correctly found that any grant of possible State aid took place, in this case, before Romania\u2019s to the European Union, which contradicts the wording of the decision at issue. Second, since that decision was adopted on the basis of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the Commission cannot, at the stage of this appeal, rely on the Europe Agreement. The EU judicature cannot substitute a different legal base for the legal base of that decision."], "id": "9417f25c-5db0-4fb0-a452-0ad414e95842", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The Kingdom of Spain argues that the wording of Article 35(2) of Regulation 2018/1971 is clear and confirmed by recital 34 of that regulation, which also refers to the possibility of such participation on the part of NRAs of \u2018third countries\u2019. It asserts that participation in BEREC, as provided for in Article 35(2), presupposes the participation of an authority linked to an organisation in the nature of a State, with the result that only a State can have an NRA. The Kingdom of Spain also notes that recital 34 cites EEA and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States and candidates for as examples of third countries."], "id": "126f96e7-ef03-477c-a4ec-876a05467196", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In that particular context, the dispute settlement clause contained in the BIT should be understood as compensating for the absence of mutual trust between the Kingdom of Sweden and Romania. It was then a matter of ensuring the protection of the investors of the Member States in Romania, by ensuring, in particular, in the absence of sufficient confidence in the respect by that State, before , of the right of investors to an effective remedy, the possibility of having recourse to a dispute settlement system outside the judicial system of that State."], "id": "2f4a16f1-7732-434a-81db-9acaaf57409f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, as the Advocate General observed in point 152 of his Opinion in Cases C\u201183/19, C\u2011127/19, C\u2011195/19, C\u2011291/19 and C\u2011355/19 and as the Commission and the Belgian Government have noted, those benchmarks give concrete expression to the specific commitments undertaken by Romania and the requirements accepted by it at the conclusion of the negotiations on 14 December 2004, set out in Annex IX to the Act of Accession, concerning, in particular, the areas of justice and the fight against corruption."], "id": "1e7b2356-4600-42ef-b0f4-728bd0431ad7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recitals 4, 6, 26 and 34 of Regulation No 1215/2012 state: \u2018(4) Certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and recognition of judgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market. Provisions to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, and to ensure rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State, are essential. \u2026 (6) In order to attain the objective of free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters, it is necessary and appropriate that the rules governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments be governed by a legal instrument of the Union which is binding and directly applicable. \u2026 (26) Mutual trust in the administration of justice in the [European] Union justifies the principle that judgments given in a Member State should be recognised in all Member States without the need for any special procedure. In addition, the aim of making cross-border litigation less time-consuming and costly justifies the abolition of the declaration of enforceability prior to enforcement in the Member State addressed. As a result, a judgment given by the courts of a Member State should be treated as if it had been given in the Member State addressed. \u2026 (34) Continuity between the [Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the successive conventions on the of new Member States to that Convention (\u201cthe 1968 Brussels Convention\u201d)], [Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1)] and this Regulation should be ensured, and transitional provisions should be laid down to that end. The same need for continuity applies as regards the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the 1968 Brussels Convention and of the Regulations replacing it.\u2019"], "id": "275b3bcc-ba00-4995-930f-98f134879f2b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, the Commission submits, since the arbitral proceedings were pending on the date of Romania\u2019s to the European Union, the arbitral tribunal\u2019s decision-making process was ongoing at that date. Furthermore, according to the findings made by that tribunal, the arbitration applicants suffered gradually, over the period between 2005 and 2011, the harm for which they sought compensation."], "id": "04d87a70-4d83-413b-a9bb-e1b0188aa026", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Under the third paragraph of Article 1(1)(f) of Directive 2015/1535, that provision covers technical regulations imposed by the authorities designated by the Member States and appearing on a list drawn up and updated, where appropriate, by the Commission in the framework of the committee referred to in Article 2 of that directive. Such a list was published on 31 May 2006, namely before Romania\u2019s to the European Union, and therefore does not include the Romanian authorities. Nonetheless, the Commission states in its observations that, at the time of its accession, Romania had notified that only its central authorities were empowered to prescribe technical regulations within the meaning of Directive 2015/1535. Acts of the municipality of Bucharest are thus not subject to the notification obligation under Article 5 of that directive."], "id": "df039985-789f-47c8-b6b0-d6b82f744f8b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that Council Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006 amending Regulations (EC) No 6/2002 and (EC) No 40/94 to give effect to the of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (OJ 2006 L 386, p. 14), introduced into Regulation No 6/2002 Title XIa, containing Article 106a to 106f."], "id": "c2d18655-ee51-4294-8dda-229f2afdd32e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it must be noted that, in so far as, in accordance with recital 34 of Regulation No 1215/2012, that regulation repeals and replaces Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1), which itself replaced the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by successive conventions on the of new Member States to that convention (\u2018the Brussels Convention\u2019), the Court\u2019s interpretation of the provisions of the latter legal instruments also applies to Regulation No 1215/2012 whenever those provisions may be regarded as \u2018equivalent\u2019 (judgment of 29 July 2019, Tibor-Trans, C\u2011451/18, EU:C:2019:635, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited). That is the case with point 3 of Article 5 of the Brussels Convention and Regulation No 44/2001, on the one hand, and with point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012, on the other (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 May 2018, Nothartov\u00e1, C\u2011306/17, EU:C:2018:360, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "5848ff5f-7612-4cda-85f2-b7e2a21a0826", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, since the of the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic to the European Union on 1 May 2004, freedom of movement for workers fully applies, in principle, to Czech nationals working in Slovakia, pursuant to Article 24 of 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 (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), and point 1.1 of Annex V thereto, subject only to the transitional provisions laid down in points 1.2 to 1.14 of that annex. As Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 is not covered by such transitional provisions, that provision applies with regard to those Czech nationals as from 1 May 2004 (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 September 1989, Lopes da Veiga, 9/88, EU:C:1989:346, paragraph 9)."], "id": "94085f56-e2f6-4429-994d-8f4edaf73da7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the first scenario considered in point 104 of this Opinion, that is to say, where the European Union is bound by international agreements that it has concluded pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, it should be noted that the arbitration award at issue was made by an international tribunal set up pursuant to a bilateral arbitration agreement. It is common ground that the European Union was not a party either to the arbitration agreement or in the arbitration proceedings in which that award was made. The European Union offered its good offices to the parties and signed the agreement in question only as a \u2018witness\u2019. Under Article 4(a) and (b) of the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal is to apply the rules and principles of international law as well as fairness and the principle of good neighbourly relations. In accordance with Article 8 of that agreement, the negotiations were not to affect the work of the arbitral tribunal, which was to continue in accordance with Article 9. The agreement, of which the European Union took note by a document of 25 September 2009, therefore does not provide for the application of EU law. It is therefore apparent that the arbitration award at issue is a decision made by an arbitral tribunal set up pursuant to a bilateral arbitration agreement and applies, in particular, international law."], "id": "d597ce87-04aa-43d4-af70-f36c2b96a91d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Council Decision of 27 November 1997 with a view to by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (\u2018Revised 1958 Agreement\u2019) (OJ 1997 L 346, p. 78)."], "id": "d80447cc-4f47-4b46-9d2f-6bc610a4b1cd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Whereas the nitrate content of water in some areas of Member States is increasing and is already high as compared with standards laid down in Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States [(OJ 1975 L 194, p. 26)], as amended by [Council] Directive 79/869/EEC [of 9 October 1979 (OJ 1979 L 271, p. 44)], and Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption [(OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11)], as amended by the 1985 Act of ;"], "id": "3aa9273c-d8a1-4fe9-8596-ef481963ff30", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of 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 (OJ 2012 L 112, p. 21) stipulates that the provisions of the original treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions before the accession of the Republic of Croatia are binding on that Member State and are to apply in that State only from the date of its accession, namely 1 July 2013."], "id": "6c5dbdf8-e4bc-46b3-82f3-a6884802cbc4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["That interpretation is, furthermore, borne out by the Commission\u2019s answer to the questions put by the Court on 28 June 2019, in which it states that the \u2018wording of the footnotes [to points 8 and 10 of Annex I to Regulation No 1380/2013], which reflects the contents of the Act of , provides that the regimes governing access to the coastal waters of each State will apply only from full implementation of the arbitration award resulting from the arbitration agreement \u2026\u2019. The Commission adds that the wording of that provision can be understood as meaning \u2018that the drafters of the provision did not intend the access provisions to apply with immediate effect or automatically from a given date\u2019."], "id": "b84602d3-bbec-4246-ba49-e5b6d43c7e18", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["33. According to the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Directive 93/13, the latter is applicable only to contracts concluded after 31 December 1994, the date by which the directive must have been transposed into national law. The Court has concluded from this that the only relevant factor for the applicability ratione temporis of the provisions of Directive 93/13 to a consumer contract is the date of the conclusion of that contract, and the period during which the contract produced effects is not relevant. (15) Accordingly, with regard to Member States which did not accede to the EU until after 31 December 1994, and in respect of which Directive 93/13 became binding only upon their , that directive applies only to contracts concluded after the date of accession of the Member State concerned. (16)"], "id": "f3f7b419-65ab-429b-83a6-67ae119aa2f1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In the main proceedings, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that, as at the date of the Republic of Poland\u2019s to the European Union, Article 88(1)(4) of the Law on VAT excluded input tax paid on the purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services from the right to deduct VAT, with the exception, in particular, of the purchase of those types of service, referred to in Article 88(1)(4)(a) of the Law on VAT, namely those used by taxable persons who at a further stage provide tourism services."], "id": "9586ae81-51e1-413a-af44-0bd34332a3d9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["73. It is clear from Kauer that, in such conditions, the determination of the Appellant\u2019s pension entitlement, even on the basis of periods of insurance completed before Austria\u2019s , has to be carried out by the Austrian authorities in accordance with EU law and, in particular, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of workers or the freedom of every EU citizen to move and reside in the territory of the Member States. (38) The case in the main proceedings does not concern the recognition of rights allegedly acquired under EU law before Austria\u2019s accession, but rather the question of whether the PVA\u2019s refusal, in December 2017, to take into account the disputed child-raising periods occurred in breach of the EU rules which had, at that time, become binding upon Austria. (39)"], "id": "ec00b732-f227-43dc-a5fa-903b62ab8aaa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["First, it argues that the right to compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicants in the main proceedings arose on the date on which the accident at work in question occurred, namely 16 October 2003, and therefore before the of the Slovak Republic to the European Union on 1 May 2004. Secondly, the judgments awarding compensation, which were delivered in 2012 and 2013, are, in the present case, declaratory and do not create rights. Those decisions therefore do not create a new legal relationship, but only confer legal protection on a right which already existed before accession."], "id": "e1f63d21-d882-4f4e-a74f-20b05706d2f9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court notes that Article 86(1) of the Law on VAT reflects the principle of the right to deduct input VAT, provided for in Article 168(a) of the VAT Directive. It also points out that the prohibition of the right to deduct in the case of overnight accommodation and catering services, laid down in Article 88(1)(4) of the Law on VAT was, prior to the Republic of Poland\u2019s to the European Union on 1 May 2004 until 1 December 2008, a straightforward repetition of the wording of Article 25(1)(3b) of the Law of 8 January 1993 on VAT and on excise duty and was based on the standstill clause in the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive (reproduced in the second paragraph of Article 176 of the VAT Directive)."], "id": "f6575014-f6eb-476f-90ed-88b8b48e17da", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and \u2013 amended text \u2013 p. 77), the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) to that convention (\u2018the Brussels Convention\u2019)."], "id": "bcd3489c-427e-44d9-ba64-df1d28af8a17", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["197 Thus, the need arising from that case-law of the Curtea Constitu\u021bional\u0103 (Constitutional Court) to re-examine the corruption cases concerned necessarily has the effect of prolonging the duration of the corresponding criminal proceedings. In addition, aside from the fact that Romania had committed, as is clear from point I(5) of Annex IX to the Act of , to \u2018revise the protracted criminal procedure by the end of 2005 to ensure that corruption cases are dealt with in a swift and transparent manner, in order to guarantee adequate sanctions that have a deterrent effect\u2019, the Court has held that, in view of Romania\u2019s specific obligations under Decision 2006/928 in relation to the fight against corruption, the related national rules and practice cannot result in the duration of investigations into corruption offences being extended or the fight against corruption being in any way weakened (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asocia\u0163ia \u2018Forumul Judec\u0103torilor din Rom\u00e2nia\u2019 and Others, C\u201183/19, C\u2011127/19, C\u2011195/19, C\u2011291/19, C\u2011355/19 and C\u2011397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 214)."], "id": "eb90e738-1eaa-4b73-8e82-47df18012f14", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["These laws and their subsequent amendments were closely monitored under the MCV after . On the basis of these laws and their subsequent amendments, the Commission periodically reported on Romania\u2019s progress with regard to the independence and efficient functioning of the judiciary, as well as progress made in fighting corruption. This progress led the Commission to establish some final recommendations in its MCV Report of 2017, which could have led to the bringing to an end of the MCV. However, the progress was reversed in the period from 2017 to 2018, when the Justice Laws were all amended by different laws, adopted by way of an accelerated procedure by the Parliament, which entailed limited debate in the two chambers of Parliament. These laws were adopted amidst great political controversy and public protests. Subsequently, between September 2018 and March 2019, the Romanian Government adopted five emergency ordinances that amended and added new provisions to the Justice Laws."], "id": "bb5ad960-1c11-4d15-b5a7-aa674a4da445", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) is not concerned by the fact that the contested conduct occurred in part prior to Austria\u2019s to the European Union on 1 January 1995. However, by its written observations, the Province of Upper Austria comments extensively on the question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to interpret the national rules that regulated the prohibition on anticompetitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices prior to Austria\u2019s accession to the European Union."], "id": "21854e8c-b7d7-4b86-9449-b75fdae8a65b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has also pointed out that it is for the national courts to determine the content of the national legislation at the date of of a new Member State to the European Union and to establish whether the effect of that legislation was to extend, after that accession, the scope of existing exclusions (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2013, AES-3C Maritza East 1, C\u2011124/12, EU:C:2013:488, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "fadf56f9-ca2b-466e-a011-b6ec38f574ed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, concerning the of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 11)."], "id": "333cc97c-39b3-47a4-b98d-d5e758170846", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["A connection with the accused person\u2019s functions under EU law is also ruled out in so far as the acts are alleged to have been committed in the period before 1 January 2014 \u2013 the day of Latvia\u2019s to the euro zone. This is because, during that time, the accused person was only a member of the General Council of the ECB, which only has a monetary-policy mandate. An internal connection of the described allegations with monetary-policy measures is, however, not apparent."], "id": "aff2858f-6354-4d3a-bc95-2d78d1c3b3d5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that in so far as Regulation No 1215/2012 repeals and replaces Regulation No 44/2001, which itself replaced the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by successive conventions on the of new Member States to that convention (\u2018the 1968 Brussels Convention\u2019), the Court\u2019s interpretation of the provisions of the latter legal instruments also applies to Regulation No 1215/2012 whenever those provisions may be regarded as \u2018equivalent\u2019 (judgment of 29 July 2019, Tibor-Trans, C\u2011451/18, EU:C:2019:635, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "6e9d6ecd-73f5-439f-ae85-31f5e5efec4b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The first paragraph of Article 351 TFEU must be interpreted as allowing a court of a Member State to apply a convention concluded between a Member State of the European Union and a non-member State before 1 January 1958 or, for States acceding to the European Union, before the date of their , such as the Convention between Switzerland and Germany concerning the Reciprocal Protection of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, signed in Berlin on 13 April 1892, as amended, which provides that the use of a trade mark registered in that Member State in the territory of the non-member State must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether that mark has been put to \u2018genuine use\u2019 within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95, until such time as one of the steps referred to in the second paragraph of Article 351 TFEU makes it possible to eliminate any incompatibilities between the TFEU and that convention."], "id": "ea81212d-273f-49c9-8e1c-62a78ba8c012", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is intended to establish uniform rules on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in order to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and to achieve a high level of consumer protection. It applies to such unfair practices arising before, during and after a commercial transition is rendered. In that context, it appears undisputed that, in consenting to to the unit-linked group life assurance contract in the main proceedings, the defendants and the applicants in the main proceedings engaged in \u2018commercial practices\u2019 within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the directive."], "id": "cf91630a-252b-4a40-8311-f6370f5defaf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Second, the General Court stated, in paragraphs 106 to 108 of the judgment under appeal, that the compensation at issue covered a period predating , during which EU law was not applicable, and that the applicants could, for that period, therefore rely on the Asteris and Others case-law. However, in the decision at issue the Commission did not draw a distinction between the periods before and after accession. It follows that the decision at issue is vitiated by illegality, in that the award of compensation is classified in that decision as an \u2018advantage\u2019, at least with respect to the period predating accession."], "id": "c046ce12-eef8-4ce0-ba48-5f7f4773fd40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["Second, from the point of view of the content of the measures that may be taken on the basis of those provisions, it appears from the wording of both Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of that the term \u2018measures\u2019 is sufficiently broad so as to encompass an act such as the MCV Decision. Neither of the provisions contain an exhaustive list of the kind of measures that may be taken on their basis. The only measure expressly mentioned is the suspension of mutual recognition under Article 38 of the Act of Accession. Thus, Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession simply set negative limits with which the measures must comply \u2014 the measures must respect the principle of proportionality and must not be discriminatory."], "id": "e8059b92-7242-4fe8-b220-24f066bd2956", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that arbitration proceedings, such as those at issue in the present case, initiated on the basis of a BIT concluded between two Member States before the to the European Union of the State party to the arbitration, are not in my view capable of adversely affecting the autonomy of EU law, even after accession; therefore, unlike the situation with regard to the arbitration proceedings at issue in the case that gave rise to the judgment in Achmea, it cannot be concluded that there has been an infringement of Articles 267 and 344 TFEU."], "id": "afddebc8-b339-4af3-a5c8-121e59bda25e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["3. By means of a notification deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, any Contracting State may declare that it will not apply the criterion of publication or, alternatively, the criterion of fixation. Such notification may be deposited at the time of ratification, acceptance or , or at any time thereafter; in the last case, it shall become effective six months after it has been deposited.\u2019"], "id": "afc509cc-19c4-4d9b-8296-e26a6d3c91b0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, in accordance with recital 34 of Regulation No 1215/2012, that regulation repeals and replaces Regulation No 44/2001, which itself replaced the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the successive conventions on the of new Member States to that convention. Consequently, the Court\u2019s interpretation of the provisions of the latter legal instruments also applies to those of Regulation No 1215/2012 whenever those provisions may be regarded as \u2018equivalent\u2019. That is the case with point 3 of Article 5 of that convention and Regulation No 44/2001, on the one hand, and point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012, on the other (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 July 2020, Verein f\u00fcr Konsumenteninformation, C\u2011343/19, EU:C:2020:534, paragraph 22)."], "id": "14a46ba7-8045-4e2a-8e14-16ef85b652aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Under Article 287 of that directive, Member States which acceded after 1 January 1978 may exempt taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than the equivalent in national currency of the respective amounts indicated for the Member States listed in that article. According to Implementing Decision 2011/335, the Republic of Lithuania, which introduced the Euro after that decision entered into force, is authorised, by way of derogation from Article 287(11) of the VAT Directive, \u2018to exempt from VAT taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than the equivalent in national currency of EUR 45000 at the conversion rate on the day of its to the European Union\u2019. That turnover is calculated by applying Article 288 of the directive."], "id": "50087476-7be6-4d9f-bcf6-0638ae12fc0f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Together with the declaration of to the group life assurance contract, the applicants in C\u2011213/20 also signed a written document containing information explaining that, during the assurance period, the value of the units in the fund could fluctuate significantly depending on the valuation of the financial instruments in which the fund invested. However, they were assured that, at the end of the 15-year contractual period, they would be paid out the totality of the value of the units of the investment fund."], "id": "8504b4e0-a56d-4892-b4b7-a4330434acd0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The offer of to the group life assurance contract at issue was presented at a single meeting at the premises of the policyholder. The assurance product was presented to the applicants in C\u2011213/20 as a capital investment in the form of systematic savings. The oral presentation of the assurance product focused on the presentation of graphs relating to the potential returns from investing in an assurance investment fund. At the same meeting, the applicants in C\u2011213/20 were also provided with documents, namely the declaration of accession and the standard contractual clauses."], "id": "262303a2-8c3e-47e4-954b-69a3a8ad79c1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["For the sake of completeness, it might be added that the PIF Convention appears to be applicable to Case C\u2011357/19 ratione temporis. The facts giving rise to the relevant convictions predate the entry into force of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union\u2019s financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 29), which, according to its Article 16, replaced the PIF Convention and its Protocols as of 6 July 2019. Equally, by virtue of Council Decision of 6 December 2007 concerning the of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities\u2019 financial interests, the Protocol of 27 September 1996, the Protocol of 29 November 1996 and the Second Protocol of 19 June 1997 (OJ 2008 L 9, p. 23), that convention is applicable to Romania."], "id": "1688d82a-cbec-4f42-a18f-ef0753ccfd03", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["For that purpose, that Member State, in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, cannot restrict itself to taking into consideration solely the declarations of the requesting third State or the , by the latter State to international treaties guaranteeing, in principle, respect for fundamental rights. The competent authority of the requested Member State, such as the referring court, must rely, for the purposes of that verification, on information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated. That information may be obtained from, inter alia, judgments of international courts, such as judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, judgments of courts of the requesting third State, and also decisions, reports and other documents produced by bodies of the Council of Europe or under the aegis of the United Nations (judgment of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C\u2011182/15, EU:C:2016:630, paragraphs 55 to 59 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "9151c920-1862-4b17-9561-33dd4668e8fa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["According to recital 3 of Directive 2011/96, the objective of this directive is to exempt dividends and other profit distributions paid by subsidiary companies to their parent companies from withholding taxes and to eliminate double taxation of such income at the level of the parent company. It is therefore clear that Directive 2011/96 does not fall under any of the exemptions provided for in Articles 28 and 29 of the 1972 Act of . There is, moreover, no provision in Directive 2011/96 which excludes Gibraltar from its territorial scope."], "id": "68ffe0f7-d801-4365-af2b-bcec85efd370", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["As regards its formal legal basis, the MCV Decision was adopted as a safeguard measure on the basis of Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of . Article 4(3) of the Treaty of Accession empowers EU institutions to adopt the measures provided for, amongst others, in Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession, before the accession of the Member States concerned. According to those provisions, known as \u2018safeguard clauses\u2019, those measures enter into force only subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession. Article 2(2) of the Treaty of Accession states that the provisions of that act form an integral part of that treaty."], "id": "6ed9a8c2-e53d-4a30-8fe5-83ba43f81728", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["(Appeal \u2013 State aid \u2013 Articles 107 and 108 TFEU \u2013 Bilateral Investment Treaty \u2013 Arbitration clause \u2013 Romania \u2013 to the European Union \u2013 Repeal of a tax incentives scheme prior to accession \u2013 Arbitral award granting payment of damages after accession \u2013 European Commission decision declaring that payment to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery \u2013 Competence of the Commission \u2013 Application ratione temporis of EU law \u2013 Determination of the date at which the right to receive aid is conferred on the beneficiary \u2013 Article 19 TEU \u2013 Articles 267 and 344 TFEU \u2013 Autonomy of EU law)"], "id": "4aa02084-79ed-4157-96fc-bca44e4391bd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, it was not the repeal of the tax incentives scheme at issue, but the infringement of the BIT by Romania that conferred on arbitration applicants the right to receive compensation the payment of which was classified by the decision at issue as constituting State aid. The arbitral tribunal could thus have definitively held Romania liable for that infringement before the of that State to the European Union. Neither the arbitration award nor the calculation of the exact amount of damages awarded is therefore relevant for the purposes of determining the date on which the right to receive State aid is conferred on its beneficiaries."], "id": "ccf96646-feab-4e8c-a375-d0bc890a5f4f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["\u20181. The provisions of the Schengen acquis as referred to in the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Schengen Protocol\u2019), annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, and the acts building upon it or otherwise related to it, listed in Annex II, as well as any further such acts adopted before the date of , shall be binding on, and applicable in, Croatia from the date of accession."], "id": "5b804e3e-8b7b-4d2a-bded-4f30d2677bba", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["188 In that context, it must be added that, as far as concerns Romania, the obligation to fight corruption affecting the European Union\u2019s financial interests, which follows from Article 325(1) TFEU, is supplemented by the specific commitments accepted by Romania when negotiations were completed on 14 December 2004. In accordance with point I(4) of Annex IX to the Act of Accession, Romania committed inter alia to \u2018considerably step up the fight against corruption and in particular against high-level corruption by ensuring a rigorous enforcement of the anti-corruption legislation\u2019. That specific commitment was subsequently given concrete expression by the adoption of Decision 2006/298, which sets benchmarks for the purpose of addressing the shortcomings observed by the Commission prior to Romania\u2019s accession to the European Union, in particular in the area of the fight against corruption. Thus, the annex to that decision, in which those benchmarks are set out, refers, in point 3 thereof, to the objective of \u2018continu[ing] to conduct professional, non-partisan investigations into allegations of high-level corruption\u2019, and, in point 4 thereof, to the objective of \u2018tak[ing] further measures to prevent and fight against corruption, in particular within the local government\u2019."], "id": "53c87afb-efe2-4a9e-9450-c0b501a6d364", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 also benefits a worker, such as UB, who, without having moved from his or her place of residence, is, because of the to the European Union of the State of which he or she is a national and the State in whose territory he or she is resident, in the same situation as a migrant worker."], "id": "fa3ff4ee-7b2b-4d2e-8dff-fc2b6287969a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Article 2 of the Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, concerning the of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 11; \u2018the Treaty of Accession\u2019), which was signed on 25 April 2005 and entered into force on 1 January 2007, provides in paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof:"], "id": "f57af059-9e99-4b5a-96ef-b94d8cb3812c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As there is an essential continuity between the two sets of regulations, it was only to be expected that Regulation No 4/2009 would make provision for decisions in maintenance matters delivered in the Member States prior to the date of application of the latter regulation on 18 June 2011. This, as we shall now see, is reflected in the transitional provisions contained in Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009. The essential question remains, however, as to whether these provisions can be interpreted so as to reach back and to apply to decisions given by national courts prior to their as Member States of the Union. It is to this key question which we can now turn."], "id": "2400af1f-5092-4654-8129-d1a7de5e28c7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, given in a State before its to the European Union and before the date of application of Regulation No 4/2009 cannot be recognised and enforced, after that State\u2019s accession to the European Union, in another Member State pursuant to Article 75(3) of that regulation."], "id": "fac281dc-c28d-4a4c-b037-e24600f7414f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As explained above, the practices of the Austrian elevator cartel concerned by the main proceedings took place both before and after Austria\u2019s to the European Union. However, in terms of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to answer this request for a preliminary ruling, the question of whether the claims for damages brought by the Province of Upper Austria in the main proceedings are based on the effects produced by the elevator cartel before or after Austria\u2019s accession to the EU is irrelevant."], "id": "fd40f45f-e70d-44bf-b6ea-d237dec3fa44", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["76 Relatedly, the Court found, in respect of the EU\u2019s to the Convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982 (UNCLOS) and the Declaration of Community Competence in the context of that accession, that it constitutes a useful reference base, but cannot be considered exhaustive. See judgment of 30 May 2006, Commission v Ireland (C\u2011459/03, EU:C:2006:345, paragraph 109). See also Govaere, I., \u2018Beware of the Trojan Horse: Dispute Settlement in (Mixed) Agreements and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order\u2019, in Hillion, C. and Koutrakos, P. (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World, London, Hart Publishing, 2010, pp. 187-207, at p. 194."], "id": "9df4f86c-9b83-4e58-a5ce-9f498033e067", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The Council argues that the applicant is not individually concerned by the contested directive because, even accepting that that directive may have legal consequences for the applicant\u2019s situation, it appears that the provisions of that directive apply to objectively determined legal situations and that they do not distinguish the applicant individually as in the case of the addressee of an individual decision. The contested directive applies to all gas transmission lines between a Member State and a third country, whether on-shore or off-shore, pre-existing, completed or new, or even transmission lines which, following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union, have become lines between a Member State and a third country, or lines that will be included in the scope of that directive due to the of new Member States to the European Union."], "id": "a02d0930-4dc5-4e81-9ace-9fe9de9b7147", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Now Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7) as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of environment, by reason of the of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193)."], "id": "458b66de-22b6-408c-a932-3a44f9527eed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of empower the Commission to take appropriate measures in the event of, respectively, imminent risk of serious breach of the functioning of the internal market linked to Romania\u2019s failure to honour commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations and imminent risk of serious shortcomings by Romania as regards compliance with EU law relating to the area of freedom, security and justice."], "id": "2239c3c3-23e6-4bfd-bc60-f7fef809f5cb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["A further element emphasising the binding nature of the obligation to achieve the objectives set out in the MCV benchmarks, as pointed out by the Swedish Government, concerns the significant legal consequences attached to non-compliance. As noted in recital 7 of the MCV Decision, if the benchmarks are not achieved, the Commission states that it may apply further safeguard measures on the basis of Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of , including the suspension of mutual recognition. Furthermore, the specific legal consequences of a hypothetical infringement, which may arise from the particular MCV regime, do not in themselves prevent recourse to the ordinary enforcement instruments through infringement proceedings in the event of the non-fulfilment by Romania of its obligations under the MCV Decision."], "id": "1eab0148-c58f-4e39-bdf3-85ad56f00196", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["While I acknowledge that, pursuant to the arrangement for Croatia\u2019s to the European Union, its participation in the Schengen acquis is only partial (point 15 above), Croatia participates in the Common European Asylum System. Not only is Croatia a participant in the Dublin III Regulation (the consequences of which were considered by the Court in its ruling in A.S. ) and the Eurodac Regulation, it has implemented and regularly applies the Qualification Directive, the Procedures Directive, and the Reception Directive. It is therefore bound by Article 80 TFEU, pursuant to which the implementation of Common European Asylum Policy \u2018shall be governed by the principle of solidarity\u2019."], "id": "0938e702-3d50-4241-8083-c0808158c530", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission may object, on the ground of serious doubts as to the compatibility with the [internal] market, to any aid measure granted in the pre-accession period between 1 September 2004 and the date fixed in the above Commission decision finding that the enforcement record has reached a satisfactory level. Such a Commission decision to object to a measure shall be regarded as a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. If such a decision is taken before the date of , the decision will only come into effect upon the date of accession."], "id": "7c6626b4-04e9-43f5-8271-5c6fc6882e3a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018If there are serious shortcomings or any imminent risks of such shortcomings in Bulgaria or Romania in the transposition, state of implementation, or the application of the framework decisions or any other relevant commitments, instruments of cooperation and decisions relating to mutual recognition in the area of criminal law under Title VI of the EU Treaty and Directives and Regulations relating to mutual recognition in civil matters under Title IV of the EC Treaty, the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years after , upon the motivated request of a Member State or on its own initiative and after consulting the Member States, take appropriate measures and specify the conditions and modalities under which these measures are put into effect."], "id": "67155010-9ac1-4f17-b27f-d22d3cd2a223", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["I must make it clear, in that regard, in the interest of consistency, that the Commission\u2019s competence to examine a measure resulting from compensation granted by means of an award made by an arbitral tribunal in the light of the law on State aid is a separate issue from that of the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling in the context of the dispute that led to the award of compensation. The fact that those courts lacked jurisdiction to do so does not in any way prejudge the Commission\u2019s competence to assess the compensation granted after in the light of the law on State aid. As the Commission correctly observes, that competence is determined solely by the event giving rise to the aid, which takes place at the time when the right to receive the compensation is definitively recognised."], "id": "fbdad171-6c95-4142-ad4a-f9aab5b860ee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that it follows from that provision that the granting of a residence permit to victims of domestic violence is not automatic and may be subject to conditions which are to be established, inter alia, by the legislatures of the Member States, in accordance with their national law or, in the event of the European Union\u2019s to that convention, the EU legislature. However, it is also clear from that provision that the national legislatures may not make the granting of such a residence permit subject to a condition based on the duration of the marriage or the relationship."], "id": "9d85522e-478e-4f5d-9853-2077b41c47a7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As follows from Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 203), the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions, in particular Directive 2003/88, are binding on the Republic of Bulgaria from the date of its accession, with the result that they apply to the future effects of situations arising prior to its accession (see, by analogy, judgment of 14 February 2019, Milivojevi\u0107, C\u2011630/17, EU:C:2019:123, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "07cdc8df-ce76-474f-948b-abdf2b764f66", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["Investors can buy shares in the investment funds by sending a declaration of to TVP in the form of an offer to enter into a trust agreement. As appears from the order for reference, the investors at issue in the case in the main proceedings before the referring court all signed their application for subscription in Austria. The subscription monies were payable to the relevant investment fund fiduciary account in TVP\u2019s name at an Austrian bank. In no case were subscription monies transferred to a German fiduciary account."], "id": "b4325f8a-5ceb-4448-bfe3-182015a52b08", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Accession", "masked_sentences": ["As regards EU law, Gibraltar is a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible within the meaning of Article 355(3) TFEU and to which the provisions of the Treaties apply. The Act concerning the Conditions of of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties (\u2018the 1972 Act of Accession\u2019) provides, however, that certain parts of the Treaty are not to apply to Gibraltar."], "id": "a3e39062-927a-47e0-99e7-1c4225e9d736", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In February 2000 the negotiations for the of Romania to the European Union started. In those negotiations the European Union noted, in the common position of 21 November 2001, that in Romania there were \u2018a number of existing as well as new incompatible aid schemes which [had] not been brought into line with the acquis\u2019, including \u2018facilities provided under [the tax incentives scheme at issue]\u2019."], "id": "93218893-2666-4304-a4e0-0b88a11ebe02", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["As regards, in particular, those benchmarks, it should be added that they were defined, as is apparent from paragraphs 158 to 162 above, on the basis of the deficiencies established by the Commission before Romania\u2019s to the European Union in the areas of, inter alia, judicial reforms and the fight against corruption, and that they seek to ensure that that Member State complies with the value of the rule of law set out in Article 2 TEU, which is condition for the enjoyment of all of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to that Member State."], "id": "cd01f5a7-b7fa-4b60-9653-df628b699ce7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["By the judgment under appeal, the General Court upheld the first part of the first plea raised in Case T\u2011704/15 and the first part of the second plea raised in Cases T\u2011624/15 and T\u2011694/15 alleging, first, the Commission\u2019s lack of competence to adopt the decision at issue under Article 108 TFEU and, secondly, the absence of advantage, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, conferred by the payment of damages in that, in particular, the purported advantage was granted before Romania\u2019s to the European Union. It held, in essence, in paragraphs 59 to 93 of that judgment that, by adopting the decision at issue, the Commission had retroactively applied the powers which it held under Article 108 TFEU and Regulation No 659/1999 to events predating Romania\u2019s accession and that the Commission could not therefore classify the measure at issue, namely \u2013 according to that decision \u2013 the payment of compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal by way of compensation for the damage that the arbitration applicants allegedly suffered due to the repeal by that State of the tax incentives scheme at issue, as \u2018State aid\u2019 within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU."], "id": "40f18190-88c5-4298-8a24-4745b9c9f82f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["It follows, however, from my answer to the first question asked by the referring court that Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 cannot be applied to decisions which were given in States which were not yet members of the EU at the time those decisions were given. If this interpretation of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 is correct, it might be thought somewhat improbable that the ancillary provisions of Article 75(3) of Regulation No 4/2009 would have the indirect effect of facilitating the recognition and enforcement of a decision made by a court of a State before its to the Union. I have come to the conclusion that this provision cannot be interpreted in this sense either. I take this view for the following reasons."], "id": "557dc1a3-6151-4085-be47-71f45f9317a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["I shall begin my analysis by examining the cross-appeal relating to the compatibility with EU law of arbitration proceedings based on an intra-EU BIT, which, should it be upheld, would render the action at first instance inadmissible. As I am of the view that the pleas put forward in support of the cross-appeal should be rejected, I shall continue my analysis by examining the main appeal, which deals with the question of the Commission\u2019s competence in the law on State aid in the context of the of a State to the European Union."], "id": "9a9bf8aa-66bb-41bf-a788-64ed6daa5be3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accession", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with the principle of mutual trust and in line with the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by subsequent conventions relating to the of new Member States to that convention, Regulation No 44/2001, which applies in the present case, is intended to make the recognition and enforcement of judgments simpler and more rapid. That instrument of secondary legislation simplifies the formalities, so that judgments delivered in one Member State are recognised automatically, without any special procedure being required, and the procedure for making a decision delivered in one Member State enforceable in another Member State is efficient and rapid."], "id": "8c8473b7-d442-4cac-87b1-4900b33e97dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["precluding legislation of a Member State implementing the procedure for the exchange of information on request established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014, which prevents a person holding information from bringing an action against a decision by which the competent authority of that Member State orders that person to provide it with that information, with a view to following up on a request for exchange of information made by the competent authority of another Member State, and as"], "id": "6eda75c5-1cf8-49cc-b94c-530b7eae6bb7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018This Directive shall apply to the road transport sector from the date of application of a legislative act amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System (\u201cthe IMI Regulation\u201d) (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11)] for posting drivers in the road transport sector.\u2019"], "id": "955def0d-3f28-4529-8fc1-638b05e8af09", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 20(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that where a request for exchange of information made by an authority of a requesting Member State designates the taxpayers to which it relates simply by reference to their status as shareholders and beneficial owners of a company, without those taxpayers having been identified by the requesting authority in advance, individually and by name, the request satisfies the identification requirements laid down in that provision."], "id": "dc4ccd78-e5df-4964-aec9-c7ff176692f9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["The Mutual Assistance Directive governs only in the field of taxation, and not mutual assistance in criminal matters, like the Benelux Treaty, for instance. In substance, administrative assistance is confined to cooperation between the Member States with regard to the exchange of information, whereas, in the context of mutual assistance in criminal matters, specific investigative measures for obtaining evidence can be implemented."], "id": "8ef14ede-3089-4ebc-b235-024bc8870c92", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Tax law \u2013 Directive 2011/16/EU \u2013 in the field of taxation \u2013 Article 1(1) \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 Article 20 \u2013 Request for information from the financial authority of another Member State \u2013 Information order made by the requested financial authority \u2013 Foreseeable relevance of the requested information \u2013 Group request for information \u2013 Identified or identifiable person \u2013 Minimum information \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 47 \u2013 Right to an effective remedy before a tribunal \u2013 Statement of reasons of the information order \u2013 Disclosure of minimum information)"], "id": "38434cb6-b5a1-4505-bb29-51b63aaa7b31", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Those barriers cannot be removed solely by relying on direct application of Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty [now Articles 49 and 56 TFEU], since, on the one hand, addressing them on a case-by-case basis through infringement procedures against the Member States concerned would, especially following enlargement, be extremely complicated for national and Community institutions, and, on the other hand, the lifting of many barriers requires prior coordination of national legal schemes, including the setting up of . As the European Parliament and the Council have recognised, a Community legislative instrument makes it possible to achieve a genuine internal market for services."], "id": "2dc62240-fe5f-474e-a521-406eaa976a76", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["229 Moreover, as the applicant points out, the application of that principle to non-self-governing territories can also be inferred from the international practice of the European Union, as is illustrated by the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 24 February 1997 (OJ 1997 L 187, p. 3). Article 1(m) of Protocol 3 to that agreement concerning the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of defines the \u2018territories\u2019 of the parties as follows: \u2018\u201cterritories\u201d, includes territorial waters\u2019."], "id": "84645d4a-2786-4069-a0a5-7f0f847a1faf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["By its three questions, which must be considered together, the national court is asking, in essence, whether Article 10 of Regulation No 904/2010, read in the light of recital 25 thereof, must be interpreted as laying down time limits, which if not complied with may affect the lawfulness of the suspension of a tax audit provided for by the national law of the requesting Member State, pending the communication by the requested Member State of the information requested via the mechanism for established by that regulation."], "id": "c890ba78-511b-4e83-bfee-7c4006d785a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the question whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives, it must be stated at the outset, as the European Commission has noted, that the information necessary for the establishment and supervision of a tax such as the TOB, which is levied on each stock exchange transaction, cannot be obtained by alone and by the automatic and compulsory exchange of information in the field of taxation provided for, in particular, by Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 1)."], "id": "a7a8c8fe-6222-402a-9b57-3dee072543ed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["This Directive establishes a general legal framework which benefits a wide variety of services while taking into account the distinctive features of each type of activity or profession and its system of regulation. That framework is based on a dynamic and selective approach consisting in the removal, as a matter of priority, of barriers which may be dismantled quickly and, for the others, the launching of a process of evaluation, consultation and complementary harmonisation of specific issues, which will make possible the progressive and coordinated modernisation of national regulatory systems for service activities which is vital in order to achieve a genuine internal market for services by 2010. Provision should be made for a balanced mix of measures involving targeted harmonisation, , the provision on the freedom to provide services and encouragement of the development of codes of conduct on certain issues. That coordination of national legislative regimes should ensure a high degree of Community legal integration and a high level of protection of general interest objectives, especially protection of consumers, which is vital in order to establish trust between Member States. This Directive also takes into account other general interest objectives, including the protection of the environment, public security and public health as well as the need to comply with labour law."], "id": "ea398d93-c957-4f77-bb2c-d9b08cc3f7e6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Tax law \u2014 Directive 2011/16/EU \u2014 in the field of taxation \u2014 Article 1(1) \u2014 Article 5 \u2014 Requests for information from the tax authorities of another Member State \u2014 Information order issued by the requested tax authority \u2014 Foreseeable relevance of the requested information \u2014 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Articles 7 and 8 \u2014 Article 47 \u2014 Right to an effective remedy before a tribunal \u2014 Exclusion of legal remedies for the person responsible for providing information, the taxpayer concerned by the information and other third parties concerned by the information)"], "id": "9d489f19-065c-4f0f-9279-7af27e099a80", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on and combating fraud in the field of value added tax, read in the light of recital 25 thereof, must be interpreted as not laying down time limits, the non-compliance with which is liable to affect the lawfulness of the suspension of a tax audit provided for by the law of the requesting Member State pending the communication, by the requested Member State, of the information requested under the administrative cooperation mechanism established by that regulation."], "id": "4e501dea-b0c4-4b5e-8d2a-781d906eea67", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling from the F\u0151v\u00e1rosi K\u00f6zigazgat\u00e1si \u00e9s Munka\u00fcgyi B\u00edr\u00f3s\u00e1g (Budapest Administration and Labour Court, Hungary) concerns the interpretation of various provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC (\u2018the VAT Directive\u2019) and Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (\u2018the VAT Anti-Fraud Regulation\u2019). When are goods properly to be classified as having been \u2018dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier\u2019 within the meaning of Article 33 of the VAT Directive? When is a trader\u2019s established practice under that provision to be regarded as abusive? And what, in this context, is the required of tax authorities in different Member States in determining where taxable transactions are carried out, so as to avoid double taxation, under Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 of the VAT Anti-Fraud Regulation?"], "id": "ead1e438-7227-4856-8266-c476e083a528", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1) has been amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 (OJ 2018 L 139, p. 1). The provisions by which the Member States comply with this amendment have to be applied as from 1 July 2020."], "id": "e6079317-956f-43cc-a9cd-ec29fe7cbd0a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["The Court must now clarify whether an information order under Directive 2011/16 already constitutes an interference with the fundamental rights of the party required to provide the information, the taxpayer and other third parties concerned, against which an effective remedy must be allowed under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019). Moreover, the question arises as to how specific and precise the request must be in relation to the persons concerned in order to allow the requested tax authority to assess the \u2018foreseeable relevance\u2019 of the requested information to the tax proceedings in the other Member State. Only \u2018foreseeably relevant\u2019 information can be the subject matter of the under Directive 2011/16."], "id": "c0b7155e-c479-42ed-b48f-92dede13c28e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["86. Fourth , and most importantly, the Member States\u2019 obligation to make an effective remedy available in the present case may actually be conducive to the correct and effective application of the rules contained in the Dublin III Regulation and the Implementing Regulation. It is clear that the \u2018responsibility criteria\u2019 and the whole host of other substantive, procedural and evidentiary rules listed in both those instruments (91)to protect unaccompanied minors would become, to some extent, pointless and/or deprived of their practical effect if the Member States\u2019 authorities, when assessing take charge requests, were to have an unfettered discretion in applying them and escaped judicial control in all cases except those where the minor is to be transferred to a different Member State (cases which are covered by Article 27(1) of the Dublin III Regulation). Overall, the objective of ensuring that the determination of the Member State responsible is made pursuant to \u2018objective, fair criteria\u2019 (92)could be undermined; disparities in the application of those rules and criteria could jeopardise the smooth functioning of the Dublin III Regulation, which rests on the principles of , (93)solidarity (94) and mutual trust, (95)and a \u2018deadlock\u2019 situation may even result from irreconcilable differences between Member States, which the conciliation procedure in Article 37(2) of that regulation may not be able to dispel. (96) At the extreme end of the spectrum, a Member State could \u2013 if it wanted \u2013 systematically refuse any take charge request that is addressed to it. (97)"], "id": "e7b91666-bbbd-4441-bd1e-0acd69f97fe1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["The requirement of proportionality of penalties laid down in Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System is directly effective."], "id": "193f5e5f-c448-4995-8ed8-fef10017e1d5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), in particular Article 33 thereof, and Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (OJ 2010 L 268, p. 1)."], "id": "6a0b51f3-55a0-422a-9cb7-f1ba4c66f663", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, I will propose that the Court hold that those provisions do not preclude, for purposes of , a Member State from providing in its national law that an installation is delimited in the same way in each of the permits that its operator may be granted for greenhouse gas emissions, on the one hand, and pollution, on the other hand. It does, however, follow from those same provisions, read in conjunction with Article 3(b) of the directive, that auxiliary units can be taken into account, inter alia, for the preliminary free allocation of emission allowances only if, whilst being directly associated with the activity of the main installation and having a technical connection with it, their activity could have an effect on greenhouse gas emissions."], "id": "868801a0-b3e1-48c0-8d39-6c9687f748d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which an authority requested to provide assistance pursuant to Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/99/EEC requires a person to provide information concerning a taxpayer or third party may be challenged by that person, the taxpayer and third parties concerned before the courts of the requested Member State."], "id": "d5aa6d35-49ae-495c-8e46-cd20de2d4291", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["This Directive builds on the achievements of [Council] Directive 77/799/EEC [of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15)] but provides for clearer and more precise rules governing between Member States where necessary, in order to establish, especially as regards the exchange of information, a wider scope of administrative cooperation between Member States. Clearer rules should also make it possible in particular to cover all legal and natural persons in the Union, taking into account the ever-increasing range of legal arrangements, including not only traditional arrangements such as trusts, foundations and investment funds, but any new instrument which may be set up by taxpayers in the Member States."], "id": "75a97ea1-0f99-4ed9-bde5-3e305ee50fdb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["58 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System (\u2018the IMI Regulation\u2019), in so far as it requires the penalties provided for therein to be proportionate, has direct effect and may thus be relied on by individuals before national courts against a Member State which has transposed it incorrectly."], "id": "1609f8df-514f-4243-90a1-62c3a1de7d67", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 10 of Regulation No 904/2010, read in the light of recital 25 thereof, must be interpreted as not laying down time limits, the non-compliance with which is liable to affect the lawfulness of the suspension of a tax audit provided for by the law of the requesting Member State pending the communication, by the requested Member State, of the information requested under the mechanism established by that regulation."], "id": "58fb12b6-ad6b-4815-8148-d848068d34e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["105. In my view, that must be so for two reasons. First, in adopting the Dublin III Regulation, the EU legislature has stressed the importance of (113) and appears to have been in favour of creating a \u2018one stop\u2019 mechanism, which permits asylum seekers to deal with the authorities of a single Member State and to complete all the administrative formalities in a single place. Secondly, it seems to me that, in the present case, that obligation would spare an unaccompanied minor, such as the applicant, the trouble of having to deal with the competent authorities of both the requesting and the requested Member State (each operating according to different rules) at least up until he or she decides to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy. Overall, he or she would therefore benefit from greater protection, in line with the objectives of the Dublin system. (114)"], "id": "7cab841d-c5ab-4aad-ac94-5b6ecb4174b4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation, on the one hand, of Articles 7, 8 and 47 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019) and, on the other, Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 1) (\u2018Directive 2011/16\u2019)."], "id": "876bd3fe-f491-4934-bd26-b4b1b4e1f98c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (VAT) \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 \u2013 Articles 10 to 12 \u2013 Exchange of information \u2013 Tax audit \u2013 Time limits \u2013 Suspension of the tax audit in case of exchange of information \u2013 Non-compliance with the time limits laid down for providing information \u2013 Effect on the lawfulness of the suspension of the tax audit)"], "id": "dc026ff9-bf67-4422-a257-f72d069a4227", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["To that end, that directive states, in recital 7, that it builds on the achievements of Directive 77/799 by providing for clearer and more precise rules governing between Member States where necessary, in order to broaden the scope of such cooperation (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 May 2017, Berlioz Investment Fund, C\u2011682/15, EU:C:2017:373, paragraph 47). In particular, it is apparent from that recital that those rules should make it possible in particular to cover all legal and natural persons in the European Union, taking into account the ever-increasing range of legal arrangements which may be set up by taxpayers in the Member States."], "id": "2f57cd4c-12aa-4929-9bbf-c4681d09f7a8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["5 Article 9(1) of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71 and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System (\u2018the IMI Regulation\u2019) (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11) states: \u2018Member States may only impose administrative requirements and control measures necessary in order to ensure effective monitoring of compliance with the obligations set out in this Directive and Directive [96/71], provided that these are justified and proportionate in accordance with Union law. For these purposes Member States may in particular impose the following measures: \u2026 (b) an obligation to keep or make available \u2026 payslips, time-sheets indicating the beginning, end and duration of the daily working time and proof of payment of wages or copies of equivalent documents \u2026; (c) an obligation to deliver the documents referred to under point (b), after the period of posting, at the request of the authorities of the host Member State, within a reasonable period of time; \u2026\u2019 Austrian legislation"], "id": "f3e44086-11ea-49ec-9717-57ea5805649a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Recital 44 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System, reads as follows: \u2018Notwithstanding the establishment of more uniform rules with respect to the cross-border enforcement of administrative penalties and/or fines and the need for more common criteria to make follow-up procedures more effective in the event of the non-payment, they should not affect the Member States\u2019 competences to determine their system of penalties, sanctions and fines or the recovery measures available under their national law. Therefore, the instrument permitting enforcement or execution of such penalties and/or fines may, if appropriate, and taking into account national law and/or practice in the requested Member State, be completed, or be accompanied or replaced by a title permitting its enforcement or execution in the requested Member State.\u2019"], "id": "558106ac-cac1-474f-8a6f-fb04ac7b2283", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Compare the Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation on through the Internal Market Information System (COM(2011) 883 final) and amendment 34 in the Draft Report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of 16 July 2012 on Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (2011/0435 (COD))."], "id": "bdf5a4f5-19b6-469e-be4d-a34fd120368b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15), since repealed by Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1); See, to that effect, for instance, pending Cases C\u2011245/19, State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and C\u2011246/19, State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg."], "id": "bc007c96-e190-4e96-8f23-69232873c6d2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Directive 2014/67 also contains provisions to improve between the national authorities with competence in matters related to the posting of workers. The directive governs the control measures to be applied by the Member States when they monitor compliance with the working conditions of posted workers. The directive further provides that appropriate and effective checks and monitoring mechanisms must be put in place, and that there must be inspections by national authorities in order to monitor compliance with Directive 96/71."], "id": "736a402b-bba8-44e9-9cf2-c3c3a42c4afe", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System (\u2018the IMI Regulation\u2019) (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11)."], "id": "e5751c5a-361d-4e90-88b7-2bf1a635e038", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4f(6) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System (\u2018the IMI Regulation\u2019) . That provision allows for the first time for partial access to a professional activity in the context of a system of mutual recognition of qualifications."], "id": "47b9b007-b625-4e97-accb-05cf52d000bc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["In January 2000, following a check carried out by the Ufficio Tecnico di Finanza di Reggio Emilia (Technical Finance Office, Reggio Emilia, Italy) in the context of the procedure provided for in Article 19 of Directive 92/12, it was established that the accompanying administrative documents (\u2018the AADs\u2019) relating to the consignments of alcohol dispatched by Silcompa had never been received by the Greek customs authority in order for the official documents to be drawn up and that the stamps of the Corinthian customs office (Greece) on the AADs, found at Silcompa\u2019s premises, were false. As a result, the Agency issued three payment notices for the recovery of the unpaid excise duties, for a total amount of EUR 6296 495.47."], "id": "68cbf948-808e-4f89-bc4f-09273be07315", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018The Member State of refund may require the applicant to provide a description of his business activity by using the harmonised codes determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 34a(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 [of 7 October 2003 on in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (OJ 2003 L 264, p. 1)].\u2019"], "id": "8437d167-8e5c-42db-a242-94cf79034d4d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Second, on the one hand, the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, developed jointly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe in 1988 and amended by Protocol in 2010, has been extended to the territory of Gibraltar since 1 March 2014. In that regard, I note that, according to the OECD\u2019s peer review, the situation in Gibraltar is judged as being \u2018largely compliant\u2019. On the other hand, and probably more importantly, Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, is applicable to Gibraltar since Article 2(4) of that directive states that it is applicable to all taxes of any kind levied within the territory to which the Treaties apply by virtue of Article 52 TEU, which refers to Article 355 TFEU."], "id": "ca3ca494-b7a8-4a65-96c6-945ab147e943", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["106. Furthermore, the principle of necessarily entails, in my view, that, if an appeal is made by an unaccompanied minor such as the applicant before the courts or tribunals of the requested Member State (here, the Netherlands) against a refusal to take charge adopted by the competent authorities of that Member State, those authorities must inform the authorities of the requesting Member State (here, Greece) that such an appeal has been lodged. (115)"], "id": "c44b7edc-b0e4-4ba0-8d14-e0aa3afe62c8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["3 Recital 6 of Directive 2006/123 states: \u2018[Barriers to the freedom of establishment for providers in Member States and barriers to the free movement of services as between Member States] cannot be removed solely by relying on direct application of [Articles 49 and 56 TFEU], since, on the one hand, addressing them on a case-by-case basis through infringement procedures against the Member States concerned would, especially following enlargement, be extremely complicated for national and [EU] institutions, and, on the other hand, the lifting of many barriers requires prior coordination of national legal schemes, including the setting up of . As the European Parliament and the Council [of the European Union] have recognised, [an EU] legislative instrument makes it possible to achieve a genuine internal market for services.\u2019"], "id": "2d74c09a-ebf2-49d4-aaf3-fee329e1d8f8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the obligation to provide accommodation in a specialised detention facility, laid down in the first sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115, the Court has held that compliance with that obligation is incumbent on the Member States as such, and not on the Member States according to their respective administrative or constitutional structures. The judicial authorities responsible for detention must therefore be able to order detention in specialised detention facilities, if necessary, having recourse to any agreements providing for that may have been concluded for that purpose."], "id": "9cd8b93d-bdec-4d25-9bef-6e019d1b50e0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["However, it must be stated that Regulation No 904/2010 is confined to enabling for the purposes of exchanging information that may be necessary for the tax authorities of the Member States. That regulation does not therefore govern the powers of those authorities to carry out, in the light of such information, the classification of the transactions concerned under Directive 2006/112 (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 January 2009, Persche, C\u2011318/07, EU:C:2009:33, paragraphs 62 and 63 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "80223879-bc05-4ad1-9436-7002e0934eb0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Common system of value added tax \u2014 Directive 2006/112/EC \u2014 Article 33 \u2014 Determination of where taxable transactions are carried out \u2014 Goods dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier \u2014 Abusive practice \u2014 Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 \u2014 Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 \u2014 \u2014 Double taxation)"], "id": "708a162c-2f5c-4e88-a02b-ea9f0d21239d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["81. I therefore propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the F\u0151v\u00e1rosi T\u00f6rv\u00e9nysz\u00e9k (Budapest High Court, Hungary) as follows: 1. The recipient of the supply who is relevant for the purposes of determining the place of supply is to be determined from the perspective of the supplier on the basis of the underlying legal relationship, which establishes who must bear the expense for the supply received. An allegation of abuse of rights relating only to the recipient of the supply and a third party is irrelevant to the determination of the recipient of the supply and the place of supply. 2. Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the fundamental freedoms, the principle of neutrality of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November on the common system of value added tax and Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on and combating fraud in the field of value added tax preclude double taxation by several Member States in respect of VAT for one and the same transaction. If such double taxation is based on a different assessment of the facts and, the Member States do not agree on a solution, the national court may or must ask the Court for such a solution."], "id": "967f6a03-eac7-439b-b937-c46be7a14b79", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that Directive 2011/16 lays down rules only for between Member States and therefore does not contain any rights for individuals. However, a person who may be the subject of administrative measures may rely on Article 47 of the Charter and defend his or her case before a tribunal in the context of the application of Directive 2011/16."], "id": "bca90055-159e-4cb4-a936-a34e865472b9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a request for information must be regarded as relating to information which does not appear to be manifestly devoid of any foreseeable relevance, where the persons under examination or investigation within the meaning of that latter provision are not identified individually and by name by that request but the requesting authority provides a clear and sufficient explanation that it is conducting a targeted investigation into a limited group of persons, justified by reasonable suspicions of non-compliance with a specific legal obligation."], "id": "83598c76-6e42-4880-8f4f-634222c35916", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on and combating fraud in the field of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from being able, unilaterally, to subject transactions to value added tax treatment different from that under which they have already been taxed in another Member State."], "id": "6cd9edc5-ce88-4b15-99f3-8b28fea1bfdc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 in the field of taxation \u2013 Directive 2011/16/EU \u2013 Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) \u2013 Request for information \u2013 Decision ordering that information be provided \u2013 Refusal to comply with the order \u2013 Penalty \u2013 \u2018Foreseeable relevance\u2019 of the requested information \u2013 Absence of identification of the taxpayers concerned individually and by name \u2013 Concept of \u2018identity of the person under examination or investigation\u2019 \u2013 Statement of reasons of the request for information \u2013 Scope \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 47 \u2013 Right to an effective remedy against the decision ordering that information be provided \u2013 Article 52(1) \u2013 Limitation \u2013 Respect for the essence of the right)"], "id": "28dfe450-cdd4-4719-a887-faf5bec413f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["More than 20 years after its adoption, it has become necessary to assess whether Directive 96/71 \u2026 still strikes the right balance between the need to promote the freedom to provide services and ensure a level playing field on the one hand and the need to protect the rights of posted workers on the other. To ensure that the rules are applied uniformly and to bring about genuine social convergence, alongside the revision of Directive 96/71 \u2026, priority should be given to the implementation and enforcement of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71 and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on through the Internal Market Information System (\u201cthe IMI Regulation\u201d) (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11)]."], "id": "72079528-2fbc-4dc9-8568-cd0e5d582473", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, a single Member State cannot manage its internal taxation system, especially as regards direct taxation, without receiving information from other Member States. In order to overcome the negative effects of this phenomenon, it is indispensable to develop new between the Member States\u2019 tax administrations. There is a need for instruments likely to create confidence between Member States, by setting up the same rules, obligations and rights for all Member States."], "id": "bacea514-deb5-4a58-916a-50912d469fc7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Administrative cooperation", "masked_sentences": ["(References for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Directive 2011/16/EU \u2013 in the field of taxation \u2013 Articles 1 and 5 \u2013 Decision ordering that information be provided to the competent authority of a Member State, acting in response to a request for exchange of information from the competent authority of another Member State \u2013 Person holding the information the production of which is ordered by the competent authority of the first Member State \u2013 Taxpayer concerned by the investigation giving rise to the request from the competent authority of the second Member State \u2013 Third parties with whom that taxpayer maintains legal, banking, financial or, more broadly, economic relations \u2013 Judicial protection \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 47 \u2013 Right to an effective remedy \u2013 Article 52(1) \u2013 Limitation \u2013 Legal basis \u2013 Respect for the essence of the right to an effective remedy \u2013 Existence of a remedy enabling the individuals in question to obtain an effective review of all the relevant issues of fact and of law, as well as effective judicial protection of the rights guaranteed to them by EU law \u2013 Objective of general interest recognised by the Union \u2013 Combating international tax fraud and tax evasion \u2013 Proportionality \u2013 Whether the information referred to in the information order is \u2018foreseeably relevant\u2019 \u2013 Judicial review \u2013 Scope \u2013 Personal, temporal and material factors to be taken into consideration)"], "id": "1c8d91f5-4d15-4a1f-99c9-7de110b0bfba", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["So far as concerns the second component of the first condition for of the European Union, it is also apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 33 of the present judgment that non-contractual liability of the European Union can arise only if the institution concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits set on its discretion. It is, furthermore, clear from that case-law that, in order to determine whether a breach of a rule of EU law is sufficiently serious, the EU judicature takes into account inter alia the complexity of the situations to be regulated, the difficulties in applying or interpreting the legislation and, more particularly, the margin of discretion available to the author of the act in question."], "id": "f189e2c0-ed58-4b0b-ae67-3012adf9d849", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In that connection, I would point out that, in the context of actions for of the European Union, symbolic forms of compensation or the mere recording in the judgment of the unlawful event might constitute satisfactory compensation for the purposes of Article 340 TFEU: see, inter alia, judgments of 14 June 1979, V. v Commission (18/78, EU:C:1979:154, paragraph 19); of 9 July 1981, Kreck\u00e9 v Commission (59/80 and 129/80, EU:C:1981:170, paragraph 74); and of 9 July 1987, Hochbaum and Rawes v Commission (44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85, EU:C:1987:348, paragraph 22). This practice appears consistent with that of the ECtHR: see, among others, judgments of 23 November 1976, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (CE:ECHR:1976:1123JUD000510071, \u00a7\u00a7 10 to 11); of 17 October 2002, Agga v. Greece (CE:ECHR:2002:1017JUD005077699, \u00a7\u00a7 65 to 66); and of 30 November 2004, Vaney v. France (CE:ECHR:2004:1130JUD005394600, \u00a7\u00a7 55 to 57)."], "id": "9aaf7017-9d31-42f0-8a6a-0fadfd671b8e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["For the purpose of providing an interpretation which would be useful to the system for the allocation of international jurisdiction among the Member States, the Court retained the possibility of using both connecting factors. The solution (which was the most reasonable for that case) became a paradigm. It makes sense at a purely theoretical level, given that any requires an event, damage, and a causal link between the two."], "id": "ed89ea8e-2c22-4ed1-a740-2b6139e4a0a0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with the conditions developed in Francovich \u2010 which applies by analogy \u2010 in order for the European Union to incur under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU in respect of the unlawful conduct of its institutions, three conditions must be satisfied. These are, first, the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, second, the fact of damage and, third, the existence of a causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the perpetrator of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties."], "id": "9298a496-a3cf-408f-b7c9-3aba7fb510c2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["As I have already stated, I am fully inclined to accept that the action of the Council concerning restrictive measures is subject to particular constraints and that those constraints should be given due regard when assessing whether the European Union should incur . However, there is nothing in the documents before the Court to indicate that, in the specific case of HTTS\u2019s listing by the measures at issue, the Council had faced such constraints and, in any event, it is for the Council to explain the complexity of the situation that it had to face at the time when the restrictive measures were adopted in order for the EU Court to be able, possibly, to take this into account in determining whether the conduct complained of constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of EU law."], "id": "1d84ccc3-d5fe-4ae0-861d-bb5c70e26e5b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Third, the Council does not accept the concern expressed by the General Court, in paragraph 114 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraph 110 of the second judgment under appeal, that failure to accept that actions may be brought against the Euro Group to establish of the European Union creates a loophole with regard to effective judicial protection, the principle of which is laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU."], "id": "9b7d6bac-3776-456c-b23d-b549a2f1ee5a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, so far as concerns the alleged lack of justification for the inclusion of HTTS in the lists at issue following the annulment, by the judgment of 16 September 2013, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council (T\u2011489/10, EU:T:2013:453), of the acts including IRISL, HDSL and SAPID in the lists concerning them, the General Court held, in paragraphs 62 and 63 of the judgment under appeal, first, that that annulment is not sufficient, by itself, to establish that the inclusion of HTTS in the lists at issue was vitiated by a sufficiently serious breach such as to give rise to of the European Union. Second, the General Court found that the inclusion of HTTS in the lists at issue was founded essentially on a report of the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council establishing three manifest breaches by IRISL of the arms embargo instituted by Security Council Resolution 1747 (2007) of 24 March 2007. The General Court held that, having regard to the conclusions set out in that report, the finding that IRISL was involved in the nuclear proliferation activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran could not be regarded as manifestly erroneous."], "id": "70251f14-fbb9-42c3-9465-1e1c4741ee1e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["If, subsequent to that ex post definitive valuation, the SRB were to decide not to compensate the appellants through a write-back of their bonds, the SRB\u2019s decision, and, potentially, the definitive valuation under Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014, could, in any event, be challenged by bringing an action for annulment, an action for failure to act or an action to establish under Article 340 TFEU."], "id": "d152fba9-e999-48b4-ad2f-1807b5c16585", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction, to the exclusion of national courts, to hear and determine an action for brought by a former member of the temporary staff of the European Commission on account of wrongful conduct which he attributes to the member of that institution, for whom he was an employee and which, it is claimed, led the institution to terminate the employment relationship with that member of staff. Such an action must be directed not against the member of the Commission concerned, but against the European Union, represented by the Commission."], "id": "b7e50895-2b9e-4a67-afbd-ce4697394fed", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["By its fourth question, which it is appropriate to examine in the first place, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for brought by a former member of the temporary staff of the Commission on account of wrongful conduct which he attributes to the member of that institution for whom he was an employee and which, it is claimed, led the institution to terminate the employment relationship with that member of staff."], "id": "fd1cdd9f-0ba7-40e3-87ea-19bd110f602a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["For all of those reasons, and without prejudging the conclusion that the General Court will reach following an analysis which does not contain any errors of law regarding the first of the conditions governing the establishment of on the part of the European Union, I propose that the Court should refer the case back to the General Court in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice."], "id": "ecec50bd-926d-447a-998e-99c5abd11c32", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the condition that the breach of the legal rule must be sufficiently serious in order for the European Union to incur , the applicant submits that the judgments of 22 November 2017, Commission v Bilba\u00edna de Alquitranes and Others (C\u2011691/15 P, EU:C:2017:882), and of 7 October 2015, Bilba\u00edna de Alquitranes and Others v Commission (T\u2011689/13, not published, EU:T:2015:767) do not leave any room for doubt as to whether the Commission\u2019s manifest error of assessment, that is to say, its failure to have regard to the actual scope of its discretion when adopting the unlawful classification of CTPHT, constitutes such a breach."], "id": "be184e7d-a1c0-4899-bab9-ca7b4362de5c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, if an institution could rely on any relevant matter that was not taken into account when the decision concerned was adopted in order to demonstrate that it did not commit a breach of a rule of EU law sufficiently serious to give rise to of the European Union, the outcome of the action for damages could vary according to the date on which it was brought. The award of compensation for the damage suffered on account of the conduct of the EU institutions would depend, in that context, on whether during the five-year period, prescribed in the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which an action for damages may be brought any matter that was not taken into account at the time of adoption of the decision concerned enabled the institution that adopted it to justify its actions."], "id": "df03bade-6308-48f1-a870-d572955d9e02", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The conclusion regarding the legal nature of the Euro Group which precludes its classification as an institution within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU does not undermine the full application of the principle of effective judicial protection, nor does it contradict the notion of a \u2018Union based on the rule of law\u2019. Indeed, individuals are ensured judicial protection by the fact that they can bring an action in against institutions which adopt acts and conduct giving effect to and developing on the conclusions of the Euro Group."], "id": "7576d4f8-90ad-4010-828a-e8daafd9f8ee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["43. Leaving aside the classic question of categorising a provision of the Charter as \u2018enshrining a right or a principle\u2019, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the infringement of certain rights, such as that corresponding to the administration\u2019s obligation to give reasons for its decisions, which is expressly referred to in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter, does not always give rise to on the part of the European Union. (40) Thus, the Court itself does not appear to regard its inclusion in the Charter as decisive of whether the right to sound administration is to be classified as a right intended to confer rights on individuals. It is not the case that every obligation of the administration automatically gives rise to a subjective right on the part of individuals."], "id": "1c7176fe-e407-43a8-bf1c-07a724edee6d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In order to assess whether the unlawful act committed by the Commission is capable of resulting in the European Union incurring , it must be ascertained first whether the applicant has established the existence of a breach, in the present case, of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals within the meaning of the case-law, then whether the breach of that rule of law was sufficiently serious within the meaning of the case-law."], "id": "1c7da8be-1328-454f-a16e-60706e9e0bf1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["HTTS submits that the General Court, in particular in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the judgment under appeal, erred in law in holding that the Council could rely on information and material that were not available to it when HTTS was included in the lists at issue, in order to demonstrate that it had not committed a breach of a rule of EU law sufficiently serious to give rise to of the European Union. In the appellant\u2019s submission, the General Court had to place itself at the date on which the restrictive measures concerned were adopted in order to decide whether, on the basis of the material available to it, an administrative authority exercising ordinary care and diligence would have acted in the same way as the Council in the case in point."], "id": "d22f4e20-1f16-4313-915a-a1ae6667af73", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Second, SatCen alleges that the General Court erred in law in concluding, in paragraphs 118 to 123 of the judgment under appeal, that the respondent\u2019s action for annulment falls within the scope of Article 263 TFEU, and that her claim for falls within that of Article 268 TFEU. In particular, SatCen contends that the respondent, as a member of staff of SatCen, cannot be considered a \u2018third party\u2019 within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. In addition, the judgment in H v Council and Others cannot, in SatCen\u2019s view, be applied by analogy, as the case at hand concerns a contractual agent, rather than an agent seconded by a Member State or an EU institution."], "id": "36410455-2c00-440c-8ba4-9dacc14725ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Does it follow from the principles of EU law of equivalence and effectiveness that a national court is obliged to regard, of its own motion, an action as having been brought on the ground of a breach of an obligation arising from Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) by a Member State if the action relates to the of the Member State for losses arising from an infringement of EU law that were allegedly caused by an authority of a Member State, and"], "id": "747befc9-cd2d-4f98-bb79-feddd17e8125", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Since Regulation No 961/2010 was annulled by the judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011, HTTS v Council (T\u2011562/10, EU:T:2011:716), which, since an appeal was not brought against it within the time limit, had the force of res judicata, the first component of the first condition for of the European Union was already fulfilled as regards that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 June 2006, P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputaci\u00f3n Foral de Vizcaya v Commission, C\u2011442/03 P and C\u2011471/03 P, EU:C:2006:356, paragraphs 41 to 45)."], "id": "72dbca7b-9cb2-4746-9e13-84217e81f297", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from all the foregoing that the General Court committed an error of law in the interpretation and application of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU by holding, in paragraphs 113 and 114 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraphs 109 and 110 of the second judgment under appeal, that, if the principle of the Union\u2019s being based on the rule of law was not to be infringed, the Euro Group had to be regarded as an EU body established by the Treaties whose acts or conduct could form the subject matter of an action before the EU judicature to establish of the European Union."], "id": "ff5ced4e-6855-4a0a-8bce-7be5a07cd701", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["98 Secondly, contrary to what the General Court held in the order under appeal, the alleged illegality was not the same in the two claims. On the one hand, in the claim for annulment, the appellants argued that the acts at issue which make up the legislative package regarding greenhouse gas emissions were vitiated by errors of law, having regard to higher-ranking rules of law. On the other hand, the claim invoking the of the Union is based on a broader breach of higher-ranking rules of law, which began in 1992. That breach is a continuous one. The European Union\u2019s failure to adopt adequate emission reductions in the legislative package regarding greenhouse gas emissions is only one aspect of that continuous breach."], "id": "7d5f6316-696d-4d96-b7a7-a981304bf3b8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU \u2013 Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union \u2013 Articles 11, 17 and 19 \u2013 Former member of the Commission \u2013 Immunity of jurisdiction \u2013 Action for \u2013 Waiver \u2013 Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)"], "id": "a5d4417e-f0e0-4f1f-900a-1c86def1e3e8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["I therefore share the reservations as regards an interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 which, in matters of in connection with investments in securities, is based on the fiction that immaterial damage occurs in a particular place, and which also requires the existence of a set of specific circumstances in order to attribute jurisdiction to the courts of that place."], "id": "67ca6dbe-1eb3-4c35-8e62-636cf22ce604", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the question whether, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it is possible, for the referring court, in addition, to apply the rules of its national law governing , it suffices to note that the purpose of Directive 93/13, in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer and that it does not contain any provisions relating to non-contractual liability."], "id": "81dafff8-f4c5-404e-bea1-fa81f348fa38", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court, in the context of assessing its jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the dispute, states that AU based his action on civil liability in tort, that is to say , to which, in principle, Regulation No 864/2007 applies, whilst relying on his status as a consumer, so that legal jurisdiction may then be determined on the basis of the provisions of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012."], "id": "36e53d2f-23b1-43ae-b19c-9bd26e80779c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["See, with regard to the conditions governing the of EU bodies, judgments of 29 September 1982, Oleifici Mediterranei v EEC (26/81, EU:C:1982:318, paragraph 16), and of 18 March 2010, Trubowest HandelandMakarov v Council and Commission (C\u2011419/08 P, EU:C:2010:147, paragraph 40). See, for compensation claims by individuals against Member States on the grounds of infringement of EU law, judgments of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others (C\u20116/90 and C\u20119/90, EU:C:1991:428, paragraph 40); of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du p\u00eacheur and Factortame (C\u201146/93 and C\u201148/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraph 51); and of 14 March 2013, Leth (C\u2011420/11, EU:C:2013:166, paragraph 41)."], "id": "b80712ee-f040-433c-89e9-717a7474e5e7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The function of that restriction would therefore be disregarded if it were accepted that the of the Union could be incurred in order to compensate for damage caused to an individual by the infringement of a rule of law which does not create any rights in his or her favour, but which has the object of conferring rights on a third party."], "id": "02b3a14b-a2d4-474b-a8be-fe25d15a6b09", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The European Union may incur under that provision only if a number of conditions are fulfilled, namely the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the EU institution, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of (judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB, C\u20118/15 P to C\u201110/15 P, EU:C:2016:701, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e95f19a3-c09c-41d1-95f5-be0758cc36d6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018The SRM [Single Resolution Mechanism] brings together the [Single Resolution Board; \u2018the Board\u2019], the Council, the Commission and the resolution authorities of the participating Member States. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction to review the legality of decisions adopted by the Board, the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, as well as for determining their . Furthermore, the Court of Justice has, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU, competence to give preliminary rulings upon request of national judicial authorities on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies or agencies of the Union. National judicial authorities should be competent, in accordance with their national law, to review the legality of decisions adopted by the resolution authorities of the participating Member States in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this Regulation, as well as to determine their non-contractual liability.\u2019"], "id": "8e718982-85b1-4618-a2a4-71f75bf1516d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["However, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, it is for the Union to \u2018make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties\u2019. As the Court has emphasised as far back as 1969, in respect of , the Treaties provide for a \u2018uniform system\u2019 in compensating for damage caused by its institutions and by its servants in the performance of their duties."], "id": "aac27707-4a13-4e9a-82db-918241db5007", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from paragraphs 127 to 130 of the present judgment that the General Court rightly held, in paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal, that the rules relied on in that regard by Mr Dalli were not intended to confer rights on him and that that finding was sufficient to exclude the Union\u2019s arising from the making of that recording."], "id": "02617068-4ceb-4860-8133-08a23e677890", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The option available to individuals to claim, before the EU courts, that the European Union has incurred is based on the notion that the European Union is based on the rule of law, and is the final step in protecting individuals from actions on the part of the EU institutions where those actions have caused damage. A Union based on the fully complete rule of law requires that, where the Council acts within the context of the CFSP and then adopts restrictive measures, it is not immune from being held liable."], "id": "306a532a-ba91-4b0e-ba5b-819200e64f60", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Thirdly, even if on this occasion all of the conditions for on the part of the European Union to be established were satisfied, the amount of compensation for the damage would still need to be determined and/or a decision would still need to be taken on the argument raised by the Council that the action for damages is time-barred, an argument which was not addressed by the General Court and, therefore, could not be debated between the parties in the appeal proceedings."], "id": "1b3b60e8-da50-45bb-b227-c226d469ba6b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from the settled case-law cited above that it is also appropriate to reject the applicant\u2019s argument that a manifest error of assessment is, in all circumstances, a sufficiently serious breach of a rule leaving scope for discretion. As observed in paragraphs 80 to 83 above, as an action for damages is an independent form of action, the fact that a measure adopted by the Commission is unlawful is not, in itself, enough for the European Union to incur . The characterisation of an error of assessment as manifest relates to the overstepping of the limits of discretion and is therefore intended to distinguish situations in which that overstepping constitutes a breach of law from situations in which there is a mere disagreement over the appropriate exercise of that discretion. Consequently, where the institution in question has broad discretion, a finding that a sufficiently serious breach has occurred can be made only after it has been found that a manifest error of assessment has been committed, with the purpose of identifying, based on the criteria referred to in paragraph 88 above, the most serious and inexcusable errors that amount to a manifest and serious failure to have regard to the limits imposed on the discretion of the institution concerned."], "id": "a05a7a28-9fe9-4ae4-ac1e-eb6e7fc38005", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["\u2026 114 In the light of the foregoing, the error committed by the Commission therefore appears to be excusable. Given the lack of clarity and the difficulties in interpreting the relevant provisions in Annex I to Regulation No 1272/2008 regarding the consideration that can be given to factors other than those expressly provided for when applying the summation method, the Commission\u2019s conduct is close to that which could reasonably be expected from an administrative authority exercising ordinary care and diligence in an analogous situation, that is to say, a situation characterised by scientific complexity connected to the classification of a substance of unknown composition such as CTPHT with the purpose of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. That conduct is not equivalent to a manifest and grave disregard of the limits on the Commission\u2019s discretion. Therefore, the error committed does not constitute a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law, with the result that the European Union has not, in any event, incurred in the present case. That finding applies equally to the infringement of the summation method and, for the sake of completeness and on the grounds set out above, to the alleged breach of the duty of diligence. [(16)]\u2019 V. Procedure before the Court"], "id": "d3f6e920-9ff5-46e3-bd5a-18a76b421253", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, the interpretation according to which all damages claims arising from the employment relationship with an EU institution must be brought under Article 270 TFEU provides more clarity and predictability regarding the rules of jurisdiction before the EU Courts, enhancing respect for the rule of law. In offering a clear delineation between jurisdiction under Articles 268 and 270 TFEU for actions in damages on the basis of of the European Union, such an interpretation helps to define the judicial architecture of the European Union and enhances individual access to the EU Courts."], "id": "ca5a3e0c-5067-4842-b559-f931519a16b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["(Appeal \u2014 Arbitration clause \u2014 Contract staff of EU international missions \u2014 Common Foreign and Security Policy \u2014 Jurisdiction of the EU Courts \u2014 Contractual dispute \u2014 Admissibility \u2014 Concept of act separable from its contractual context \u2014 Partial reclassification of the action \u2014 Action for annulment \u2014 Contractual liability \u2014 \u2014 Articles 263, 268, 272 and 340 TFEU)"], "id": "23a00aa5-75e7-4d18-94dc-0c1508792a3f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on five grounds of appeal, alleging (i) infringement by the General Court of the rights of the defence and of the principle of ne ultra petita; (ii) incorrect interpretation of Article 266 TFEU; (iii) failure by the General Court to take account of the new regulatory framework in the field of competition; (iv) an error of law as regards the conditions for establishing of the European Union; and (v) infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty."], "id": "58445424-121e-4e7f-bc0b-c4fc14d6a7db", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["As regards actions concerning the of the European Union, it should be recalled that, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the European Union is, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, to make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties."], "id": "9edf7202-5656-4e42-9986-4172ade92b90", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Beginning with the judgment in Bier, the Court has divided the concept of a \u2018harmful event\u2019, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation, into two separate concepts: the \u2018harm\u2019 (or \u2018damage\u2019) and \u2018the event giving rise to the damage\u2019. In that context, the Court has had regard to the components of , as they emerge from the general principles stemming from the national legal systems of the Member States. It has thus held that \u2018liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict can only arise provided that a causal connexion can be established between the damage and the event in which that damage originates\u2019."], "id": "6632290f-7657-4f32-96ae-c153e4ad98c0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["(Appeal \u2013 Action for damages \u2013 of the European Union \u2013 Allegedly illegal conduct of the European Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) \u2013 Termination of office of a Member of the Commission \u2013 Procedural rules governing the OLAF investigation \u2013 Opening of an investigation \u2013 Right to be heard \u2013 OLAF Supervisory Committee \u2013 Presumption of innocence \u2013 Assessment of the alleged damage)"], "id": "3f51faf5-eff0-4bfb-bd26-beb57f483aa8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Having regard to the finding of the General Court, confirmed by the Court of Justice, that the Commission infringed, in this case, a rule affording it some discretion, it is appropriate to reject the applicant\u2019s argument that the Commission considered that the summation method was a strict rule leaving it no scope for discretion. The damage that the applicant could potentially rely on stems from the Commission\u2019s manifest error of assessment in applying that method. However, that same method cannot, for the purposes of determining the of the authority that applied it, be regarded as both leaving scope for discretion as regards the infringement criterion and leaving no scope for discretion as regards the sufficiently serious breach criterion."], "id": "0d1cf528-7505-4ca8-ad3e-2f09d18d32f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, the legal basis for the Council\u2019s ability to rely on evidence which postdates the measure at issue \u2014 and thus to excuse, a posteriori, the conduct complained of \u2014 cannot, as the General Court maintains in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, stem from the fact that, \u2018unlike an action for annulment, an action based on may be brought up to five years after the occurrence of the event giving rise to the damage\u2019. In stating that \u2018the institution in respect of which non-contractual liability is said to have arisen is, in principle, entitled to rely, by way of defence, on all relevant facts and matters occurring before the action for damages was, within that five-year period, brought against it, just as the applicant is entitled to rely on evidence postdating the occurrence of damage in order to prove the scope and extent of such damage\u2019, the General Court erred in law and clearly confused the two different time frames of the two just as separate conditions for the arising of non-contractual liability of the European Union. In order to determine whether there was a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, the court must assess the conduct of the institution at the time when the measure at issue was adopted \u2014 in the present case, the individual decisions which made HTTS subject to restrictive measures in 2010. The Court of Justice did not rule otherwise in Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council in holding that \u2018the obligation on the Council to provide, in the event of a challenge, information or evidence substantiating the reasons for the adoption of restrictive measures \u2026 was already apparent, at the time when the provisions at issue were adopted, from well-established case-law\u2019. The sufficiently serious breach must be understood as a concept fixed at a particular time: the time of the conduct complained of. Furthermore, still in the context of Case C\u201145/15 P, the Council seemed to share that static view of the sufficiently serious breach since it submitted that \u2018the case-law on the basis of which it [was] for the Council, in the event of a challenge, to provide information or evidence substantiating the reasons for the adoption of restrictive measures \u2026 was not clearly settled at the time when the first of the provisions at issue was adopted\u2019. By contrast, the damage, which necessarily postdates the event giving rise to it, may evolve over time (in principle it will worsen) and is the dynamic component of the three conditions governing the European Union\u2019s non-contractual liability. It is therefore only logical that the party which considers that it has suffered damage on account of action on the part of an institution must be able to rely on matters which postdate the event giving rise to it \u2014 the sufficiently serious breach \u2014 in order to attest to the existence of such damage."], "id": "1192c049-d05d-460c-aca3-016d7b915eab", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["27 It is necessary to note, as a preliminary point, that the legal remedy provided for in Article 265 TFEU is based on the premiss that unlawful inaction on the part of an institution makes it possible to bring an action before the EU courts seeking a declaration that the failure to act is contrary to the FEU Treaty (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 November 2013, Commission v Council, C\u2011196/12, EU:C:2013:753, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited). Under Article 266 TFEU, such a declaration has the effect that that institution is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the EU court, without prejudice to any actions to establish to which that declaration may give rise. However, where the act whose absence constitutes the subject matter of the proceedings was adopted after the action was brought under Article 265 TFEU but before judgment, a declaration by the EU court to the effect that the initial failure to act is unlawful can no longer bring about the consequences prescribed by Article 266 TFEU (see, to that effect, order of 13 December 2000, Sodima v Commission, C\u201144/00 P, EU:C:2000:686, paragraph 83)."], "id": "07ab7b75-b6d0-45c3-96f6-46c2ce9cbad4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, as is apparent from Article 17(1) TEU, the Commission \u2018shall promote the general interest of the Union\u2019 and \u2018shall oversee the application of Union law\u2019 (judgments of 27 November 2012, Pringle, C\u2011370/12, EU:C:2012:756, paragraph 163, and of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB, C\u20118/15 P to C\u201110/15 P, EU:C:2016:701, paragraph 57). It therefore retains, in the context of its participation in the activities of the Euro Group, its role of guardian of the Treaties. It follows that any failure on its part to check that the political agreements concluded within the Euro Group are in conformity with EU law is liable to result in of the European Union being invoked under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU."], "id": "e290933a-c1ec-430a-8525-6c14bfaa4f28", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Since the 19th century, French civil liability law has been based on the principle of non-cumulation of liability ex delicto, on the one hand, and liability ex contractu, on the other, which means: (a) that a person cannot incur liability on both grounds at the same time; and (b) that, where the parties are bound by a valid contract and the loss suffered by one is the result of the non-performance or defective performance of contractual obligations by the other, is discarded in favour of contractual liability."], "id": "1faf5d0b-665d-4a26-a782-410850b5a1e9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU \u2013 Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union \u2013 Articles 11, 17 and 19 \u2013 Former member of the European Commission \u2013 Immunity from jurisdiction \u2013 Claim for \u2013 Waiver of immunity \u2013 Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)"], "id": "848cb957-3c3b-414f-8e90-51ac199174f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["It will be recalled that Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides that proceedings against the European Union in matters arising from are to be barred after a period of five years from the occurrence of the event giving rise thereto. It will therefore be for the General Court to determine the exact date on which the enrichment (and the associated impoverishment) occurred."], "id": "3d94f4b4-2fae-4e62-ad94-8e7bf422f52e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["By their second ground of appeal, which it is appropriate to examine in the first place, the appellants claim that the Court should set aside the legal ground of the order under appeal that their reasoning concerning the letter of 5 March 2018 must be rejected as inadmissible, since they did not specify the reasons for which, assuming that they intended to support such an argument, that letter gives rise to the EU\u2019s ."], "id": "803889db-2672-47da-bce2-ab6484596abe", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In support of the action, the applicant submits, firstly, that his request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations was admissible and that his action seeking the annulment of the rejection of that request is therefore likewise admissible. Secondly, and as his principal claim, he seeks to establish the EU\u2019s for the Commission\u2019s alleged disregard of his status as a whistle-blower and, in the alternative, he requests that the contested decision be annulled."], "id": "7719a6c8-2edc-416e-a0c9-3c564a580b24", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["99. The only exception that seems, at least at first glance, to support the arguments put forward by the Council is the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. That provision, which concerns the of the Union, has been interpreted by the Court in the sense that the term \u2018institution\u2019, within the meaning of that provision, encompasses not only the EU institutions listed in Article 13(1) TEU but also all the EU bodies, offices and agencies that have been established by or under the Treaties and are intended to contribute to the achievement of the European Union\u2019s objectives. (61)"], "id": "1bfe91d6-553b-4f24-8e58-e339d178b73d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["By applications lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 20 December 2013 in Case T\u2011680/13 and 1 December 2014 in Case T\u2011786/14, the applicants at first instance in Cases C\u2011597/18 P and C\u2011598/18 P brought actions asking the General Court to order the Council, the Commission, the ECB and the Euro Group (\u2018the defendants\u2019) to pay them the sums shown in the schedules annexed to their applications plus interest accruing from 16 March 2013 until the judgments of the General Court, or, in the alternative, to find that the European Union and/or the defendants had incurred and to determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss which they had actually suffered."], "id": "dda30155-3179-46b0-8e7b-7761f026d8f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, such reasoning cannot be easily reconciled with the more general case-law on the conditions governing the of the European Union, in particular as regards the condition relating to the existence of a breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals, a breach which, according to case-law, must be \u2018sufficiently serious\u2019. The decisive criterion for finding that a breach of EU law is sufficiently serious is that the institution concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits set on its discretion."], "id": "d65ea565-9c30-4647-9a13-b636f8d9ed8c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In any event, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, in order for the European Union to incur under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU for unlawful conduct of its institutions, a number of conditions must be satisfied: the institution\u2019s conduct must be unlawful, actual damage must have been suffered and there must be a causal link between the conduct and the damage pleaded (see order of 6 September 2011, Mugraby v Council and Commission, T\u2011292/09, not published, EU:T:2011:418, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited). In particular, it should be recalled that the damage for which compensation is sought in an action to establish non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, must be actual and certain, which it is for the applicant to prove. It is for the latter to adduce conclusive proof as to both the existence and the extent of the damage that he alleges (see judgment of 6 September 2018, Klein v Commission, C\u2011346/17 P, EU:C:2018:679, paragraph 147 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "ce8bc492-e8ef-4200-9b7b-c11302ceed4f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The General Court concluded, in paragraph 32 of the judgment under appeal, that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant\u2019s action in so far as it sought damages for the harm allegedly caused by the restrictive measures provided for in Decisions 2010/413, 2010/644 and 2011/783, and that it had jurisdiction to rule on the action only in so far as it was based on of the European Union arising from Regulations Nos 961/2010 and 267/2012 and Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011."], "id": "0c473191-ceaa-4d64-ad55-028f2738d693", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["By the fifth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the right to fair and just working conditions and the right to sound administration, along with infringement of Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and the requirements set out in the 2014 call for contributions, SC submits that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 57 to 64, read together with paragraph 74, of the order under appeal, by holding that the claims based on Eulex Kosovo\u2019s contractual and relating to the repeated requests to take a driving test were manifestly lacking any foundation in law."], "id": "f873bf09-820c-4b2f-adf9-de8b3b1264e2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In any event, as regards, in the first place, the complaint alleging that the restrictions on the right to property were not laid down in law and, in particular, the appellants\u2019 argument that, at the time when the measures referred to in paragraph 124 of the present judgment were adopted, the European Union could not require any bail-in or the resolution of the banks concerned, it must be found, first, that, as the General Court correctly observed in paragraph 284 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraph 283 of the second judgment under appeal, the absence, at the material time, of EU harmonisation measures in relation to bail-ins of banks does not mean that Member States were precluded from adopting bail-in measures, but their adoption cannot give rise to of the European Union. Second, regarding the bank resolution regime, since the General Court did not rule on whether that regime had a legal basis in EU law at the material time, the appellants\u2019 argument in that regard must be rejected as ineffective."], "id": "4aa03415-5a05-4d3f-9941-9f80b2cca809", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In the judgment under appeal, first, the General Court found that it had jurisdiction to rule on the dispute. That jurisdiction stemmed, respectively, as regards the review of the legality of the contested decisions, from Article 263 TFEU and, as regards claims for the of the European Union, from Article 268 TFEU, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, taking into account Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019). Next, the General Court dismissed SatCen\u2019s plea of inadmissibility based on the existence of an employment relationship of a contractual nature between the respondent and SatCen. The General Court then upheld SatCen\u2019s pleas of inadmissibility concerning the claim for annulment of the decision to reject the request for assistance (as the respondent had failed to observe the prior administrative procedure) and of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings (being merely a preparatory act). Lastly, the General Court held the arguments alleging the illegality of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Board to be admissible."], "id": "7622f865-3ddd-4003-b9e1-d0c6bfd077f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["However, the Court considers that the case-law cited in paragraph 58 above does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the European Union may incur as a result of the infringement of a rule of law which is not intended stricto sensu to confer rights on individuals, but rather is likely to lead to the imposition or strengthening of obligations on individuals pursuant to other rules of EU law. In a similar manner to the approach adopted by the Court of Justice regarding the circumstances in which the rules of customary international law may be relied on (judgment of 21 December 2011, Air Transport Association of America and Others, C\u2011366/10, EU:C:2011:864, paragraph 107), it could be considered that the unlawful conduct of an EU institution affecting the legal situation of a natural or legal person \u2013 made up of its rights and, inversely, its obligations \u2013 can, in certain cases, justify the European Union\u2019s incurring non-contractual liability, whether as a result of the infringement of rights or the addition or strengthening of unlawful obligations. In that regard, in the light of the adverse effect on that legal situation, the question whether the administration\u2019s allegedly unlawful conduct consisted in the infringement of rights or led to the addition or strengthening of obligations under EU law might be irrelevant, depending on the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, in the present case, although the summation method rule does not, in itself, confer rights on individuals, the question remains whether the obligations triggered by an incorrect application of the summation method are capable of affecting the applicant\u2019s legal situation such that the latter can be considered to have, in fine, a personal right to the correct application of the summation method or whether, conversely, those obligations are merely a purely indirect consequence of the application of that rule affecting only the applicant\u2019s economic situation."], "id": "83e0628c-860b-45d8-a2a9-77b1d941c4a2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it should be noted that the applicants\u2019 line of argument alleging a serious breach of their fundamental rights and those of UPS by the Commission and the existence of serious and manifest errors in the Commission\u2019s assessment of the concentration between UPS and TNT relates to the first condition for the of the European Union to be incurred, whereas the line of argument alleging that those illegalities directly caused them damage and the line of argument relating to the evaluation of that damage relate, respectively, to the third and second conditions."], "id": "4351d509-9cb9-448d-905a-834a6deb5439", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["31. The cumulative nature of those conditions means that, where one of them is not satisfied, the of the European Union cannot be incurred. (24) That is why, in the present case, the General Court, having found that the error made by the Commission in classifying CTPHT did not constitute a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law, held that the non-contractual liability of the European Union had not been incurred and, accordingly, did not consider the other conditions of such liability."], "id": "26f02fac-af08-4411-9bf4-4b44c0e1a1ec", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["According to settled case-law, Article 268 TFEU in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU gives jurisdiction to the EU judicature only to award compensation for damage caused by the EU institutions or by their servants in the performance of their duties or, in other words, for damage capable of giving rise to on the part of the European Union. Damage caused by national authorities, on the other hand, can give rise to liability only on the part of those national authorities and the national courts retain sole jurisdiction to order compensation for such damage (judgment of 7 July 1987, L\u2019\u00c9toile commerciale and CNTA v Commission, 89/86 and 91/86, EU:C:1987:337, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "01a276e8-8bb2-4be6-99a7-19be8fa35645", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The General Court held in those paragraphs of the judgments under appeal that the inability to bring, on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, an action against the Euro Group to establish of the European Union would clash with the principle of the Union\u2019s being based on the rule of law, in the light of the requirements related to observing the principle of effective judicial protection."], "id": "9836f1ef-6b83-4b04-b5f4-dd5726da325c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["80 By the third part of its first ground of appeal, Vialto submits, first, that in paragraph 77 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law by dismissing its arguments based on respect for professional secrecy and on the clauses of contracts concluded with its commercial partners as irrelevant for the purposes of finding the European Union to have . In its view, those arguments are relevant to establishing that OLAF infringed Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/96, as they demonstrate that the reservations expressed by Vialto with regard to the collection of data unrelated to the investigation were justified. Under the case-law of the Court of Justice, Vialto was required to prove that the making of such reservations did not constitute an abuse of rights."], "id": "5e412ab1-c663-4957-a6a4-22c970168b1e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In my opinion it results from the incorporation into the Staff Regulations of the liability of an institution for damages whenever that liability arises from the employment relationship. As a consequence of such incorporation, rights to damages which result from such are to be claimed using the procedure envisaged by the Treaty for staff cases \u2013 Article 270 TFEU. The right to bring actions in damages using that procedure, rather than the Article 268 TFEU procedure, has already been justified in this way when the actions were brought by officials themselves."], "id": "2afd2e0b-90a5-4fb3-b895-d0389f53b7b4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["First, as the Advocate General has noted in point 23 of his Opinion, the Court has already applied in that area the conditions, recalled in paragraph 32 of the present judgment, relating to the arising of of the European Union (judgment of 30 May 2017, Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council, C\u201145/15 P, EU:C:2017:402). Second, it follows from the case-law cited in paragraph 33 of the present judgment that the complexity of the situations to be regulated and the difficulties in applying or interpreting the rules of EU law in that area, which have been applied by the Council in the course of adopting the act at issue, are taken into account when assessing the Council\u2019s conduct in order to determine whether it committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law."], "id": "00a79b3c-525b-4ee8-8ad5-fd493f4d05e2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Indeed, as correctly recalled by the General Court in paragraph 34 of the judgment under appeal, the European Union\u2019s under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU is subject to the satisfaction of a number of conditions, namely the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the EU institution, the establishment of actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of."], "id": "ddf7a369-8e0a-457b-865b-9f39e28154c0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Relying on the clause conferring jurisdiction on the EU Courts contained in the employment contract between SC and Eulex Kosovo, SC brought an action before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, challenging the legality of decisions taken by that mission that SC did not pass an internal competition and her employment contract was not renewed, and seeking damages based on the EU\u2019s contractual and under Article 340 TFEU."], "id": "240de806-a738-4aea-8869-ce95391e40f0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["See judgment in Brogsitter (paragraphs 25 and 26). The Court appears to have taken inspiration in that judgment from its case-law relating to civil actions for damages brought against the European Union. I recall that the FEU Treaty provides, in such matters, for an allocation of jurisdiction between the Courts of the European Union and the national courts: while disputes relating to the of the Union are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union (see Article 256(1), Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU), those relating to its contractual liability fall, in the absence of any arbitration clause to the contrary, within the jurisdiction of the national courts (see Articles 272 and 274 TFEU). According to that case-law, in order to determine whether a civil action for damages brought against the Union comes within their jurisdiction, the Courts of the European Union cannot merely rely on the legal rules invoked by the applicant, but are required to ascertain whether the object of the action for damages before them is a claim for damages based objectively and wholly on rights and obligations of a contractual origin or on rights and obligations of a non-contractual origin. In order to do so, those Courts must ascertain, on the basis of an analysis of the various elements in the file, such as the legal rule which is alleged to have been breached, the nature of the damage relied on, the conduct complained of and the legal relations existing between the parties, whether there is a contractual context between the parties, linked to the object of the dispute, a thorough examination of which is indispensable for the purposes of resolving the action. In that context, the action will be considered to be based on the contractual liability of the Union if it is apparent on a preliminary analysis of those elements that it is necessary to interpret one or more contracts concluded between the parties in question in order to establish the merits of the applicant\u2019s claims (see, in particular, judgments of 18 April 2013, Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg (C\u2011103/11 P, EU:C:2013:245, paragraphs 61 to 67), and of 10 July 2019, VG v Commission (C\u201119/18 P, EU:C:2019:578, paragraphs 28 to 30))."], "id": "461c63d4-ff73-4f05-aa6d-bae08d7e92f1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["As the referring court states, after the commencement of the claim for against the Italian Republic, which is the subject of the main proceedings, that Member State established a compensation scheme for victims of violent intentional crime committed on Italian territory, irrespective of whether they reside in Italy or not. That scheme also covers, retroactively, criminal acts of that type committed from 1 July 2005 onwards and, therefore, the crimes of sexual violence of which BV was a victim."], "id": "1bb35ca2-fb2f-4ba3-acaf-72c5cf2e5229", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["30. It is clear from settled case-law of the Court that the European Union may incur only if three conditions are fulfilled, the first being the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals (\u2018the first condition\u2019), the second the fact of damage, and the third the existence of a causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the author of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties. (23)"], "id": "47375f78-c258-4ee3-884b-bc4d58a201d1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In the event of an interpretation to the effect that, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, the requirement that the respective conduct of the authority be unlawful is not applicable to actions of depositors at a credit institution for compensation due to acts and omissions of the central bank of a Member State and, in particular, for the payment of interest for guaranteed deposits not having been paid out within the deadline and for the payment of deposits exceeding the guaranteed amount, which are brought to seek compensation for an infringement of Articles 63 to 65 and 120 TFEU, Article 3 TEU and Article 17 of the [Charter], are the requirements established by the Court of Justice of the European Union for applicable to losses:"], "id": "a3de8109-7c0b-4231-925e-e38467c366bc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, as established in the examination of the three grounds of appeal, the General Court erred in law in assessing the first and third conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the Union to incur , conditions that were the subject of inter partes argument before the General Court and examination of which does not require the adoption of any additional measure of organisation of procedure or of investigation of the case."], "id": "ec33ff01-6915-45b0-9f21-0215367ec407", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In that regulatory context, Regulation No 1272/2008 confers on the Commission the power to classify chemical substances. As illustrated by the present case, in exercising that power it may be necessary to come to conclusions on the toxicity of complex substances. The exercise of that power could be hindered, to the detriment of the objectives referred to above, if the adoption of a decision on the classification of complex substances could lead to the European Union incurring without consideration being given to scientific complexity and the resulting uncertainties, as well as the complexity of the applicable regulatory framework, as factors that could render a potential error excusable."], "id": "41c474d0-fe7f-4e1c-afea-bbc8bdbe3f60", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["55. That is true, in particular, as regards the administration\u2019s adoption of delegated or implementing acts of general scope, or of individual acts In that situation, the scope of the administration\u2019s duty of diligence is determined by the provisions applied in the particular case, which determine the scope of the powers of the administration and its discretion. On the basis of those provisions, the administration identifies all of the relevant circumstances to be taken into account. It is impossible to analyse the administration\u2019s duty of diligence without taking account of the concrete situation governed by those provisions. It is only in conjunction with them that the duty of diligence can constitute a rule of law conferring rights on individuals, breach of which may give rise to on the part of the European Union. (58) 3. The duty of diligence in the present case"], "id": "757b4aa6-66ee-4e52-b697-22fb51c541dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Although the Court has never had occasion to date to state why a breach of the duty to state reasons is not in itself sufficient to give rise to , the answer is, I think, nonetheless clear. When an applicant seeks compensation for damage caused by the legal consequences produced by a decision, that damage cannot result exclusively from the absence of a statement of reasons. Rather, such damage is caused only by the absence of a well-founded basis for that decision."], "id": "d426c8bf-c253-4255-be16-29509c2f3611", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["48. However, I consider that the interpretation applied in the judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others v Greece and EEC (106/87 to 120/87, EU:C:1988:457), is not relevant so far as the case in the main proceedings is concerned, since that case does not concern sums payable or paid on the basis of the of the Member State concerned, but compensation for the costs \u2013 deriving from regulatory obligations or natural occurrences \u2013 normally borne by the undertakings concerned in the context of their economic activities. (31)"], "id": "58bb50ab-8563-4c9a-8532-163ec123b79b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["121 Consequently, without it being necessary, at the present stage of the proceedings, to examine the scope of the other conditions for to be incurred, namely those of actual damage and of a causal link between the alleged conduct and the loss claimed, which have not been examined by the General Court in the judgment under appeal, the form of order by which the appellant seeks to have the judgment under appeal set aside in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected her claim for compensation must, like those criticising the General Court\u2019s dismissal of her action for annulment, be granted, since the General Court based the refusal to grant that claim for compensation on the finding, made in breach of the audi alteram partem principle, that there had been no unlawful conduct."], "id": "5c782d07-2820-4e9e-8b1a-f68d0294241c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The decisive test for a finding that the requirement of not leaving those parties to bear the consequences of flagrant and inexcusable misconduct by the institution concerned has been satisfied is whether the institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 July 2000, Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, C\u2011352/98 P, EU:C:2000:361, paragraph 43, and of 30 May 2017, Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council, C\u201145/15 P, EU:C:2017:402, paragraph 30). The concept of \u2018manifest and grave disregard\u2019 is not the same as the concept of \u2018manifest error of assessment\u2019, but must be regarded as a distinct concept. If such a distinction were not made, any manifest error of assessment and, therefore, any error made by an administrative authority of the European Union in circumstances where it has some discretion could result in its incurring . However, as mentioned, it does not follow from the relevant case-law set out above that any unlawful act is, by itself, a basis for such liability. The determining factor in deciding whether there has been such an infringement is, therefore, the discretion available to the institution concerned. It is thus apparent from the criteria set out in the case-law that, if the institution in question has only considerably reduced or even no discretion, the mere infringement of EU law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach (see judgment of 23 November 2011, Sison v Council, T\u2011341/07, EU:T:2011:687, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "2280a151-c940-4295-8d8a-6943c461a56a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission accepts the part of the judgment which concerns the mother, but disputes the assessments made by the General Court in response to the claims for compensation submitted by the brother and sister. The key issue raised by the appeal is whether the brother and the sister were entitled to bring the actions for non-material damages in their own name on the basis of Article 270 TFEU, which grants jurisdiction in staff cases to the Court, or if the brother and sister should have used Article 268 TFEU, which governs the general jurisdiction of the Court for actions in damages based on the of the EU."], "id": "771fc42a-f61c-4363-9f4f-6d258a430998", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fourth question is that the Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction, to the exclusion of national courts, to hear and determine an action for brought by a former member of the temporary staff of the Commission on account of wrongful conduct which he attributes to the member of that institution, for whom he was an employee and which, it is claimed, led the institution to terminate the employment relationship with that member of staff. Such an action must be directed not against the member of the Commission concerned, but against the European Union, represented by the Commission."], "id": "396ad5f6-afc3-429e-9e53-258f94da9c8c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["However, it must be pointed out that, given what has been stated in paragraph 89 of the present judgment and the fact that the Euro Group does not have the power to punish a failure to comply with the political agreements concluded within it, those agreements are given concrete expression and are implemented by means, in particular, of acts and action of the EU institutions. Individuals may thus bring before the EU judicature an action to establish of the European Union against the Council, the Commission and the ECB in respect of the acts or conduct that those EU institutions adopt following such political agreements, as is shown here by the actions brought at first instance by the applicants at first instance in Cases C\u2011597/18 P and C\u2011598/18 P."], "id": "078eef5f-ed8a-44ef-aa2e-b4ead0d00aaf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["20 By the second part of the first ground of appeal, which concerns paragraph 76 of the judgment under appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court, first, erred in the assessment of the fourth head of claim, seeking a finding that FRA\u2019s general rules applicable to the appraisal and reclassification of its members of staff and the renewal of contracts of employment were unlawful, secondly, failed to rule on her third head of claim, seeking to establish the of the European Union on account of the absence of a lawful regulatory framework, and, thirdly, and as a consequence, infringed the right to effective judicial protection."], "id": "a1ca527a-ae89-4042-b022-6f375af3c0f2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the of a Member State for damage caused by the breach of that law applies, on the ground that that Member State did not transpose, within the appropriate time, Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, as regards victims residing in that Member State, on the territory of which the violent intentional crime was committed."], "id": "a96ff7a6-d782-4b2b-8eb2-a7c4f8b245b9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["According to settled case-law, the of the European Union and the exercise of the right to compensation for damage suffered depend on the satisfaction of a number of conditions, relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct of which the institutions are accused, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of."], "id": "2348bbf0-2c18-4254-aca5-79a6b065cfcb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the plea in law and the arguments raised in the application seeking to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals capable of giving rise to on the part of the European Union, were based solely on the illegality found by the General Court in the annulment judgment."], "id": "23d4113a-f14c-4d0b-9ae7-53982e746efd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Indeed contributory negligence is a common feature of the tort and contract laws of the States Parties. See, for the Member States of the European Union, Von Bar, C. et al. (eds), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR); prepared by the Study Group on a European Civil Code and the Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group), Sellier, European Law Publishers, Munich, 2008, volume IV, book VI (\u2018Non contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another\u2019), pp. 3636-3656. In addition, that concept is recognised in EU law. See, for instance, in the field of of the European Union, judgment of 19 May 1992, Mulder and Others v Council and Commission (C\u2011104/89 and C\u201137/90, EU:C:1992:217, paragraph 33). See also Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers\u2019 rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14), Annex I, Title IV, Chapter 1, Article 26(2)(b)."], "id": "ece87aec-ff7d-4ed9-b80d-10b81803b967", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission submits that Articles 263 and 340 TFEU have the same scope ratione personae. It states that the General Court did not cite any judgment establishing that an entity whose acts cannot be the subject of an action for annulment may, on the other hand, have its acts or conduct challenged in an action to establish of the European Union."], "id": "73a080f5-9152-4f33-b9cc-d61652825d6e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["1. Does the EU administration\u2019s duty of diligence, understood as an obligation to take all relevant factors into consideration in the exercise of its powers, constitute a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, breach of which may give rise to on the part of the European Union? That is the question of principle which the Court will need to consider in examining the ground of appeal raised by the appellants in support of their appeals against four judgments of the General Court of the European Union. (2)"], "id": "47dea61d-ffa6-426e-b968-ea1bdcc8ab54", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The applicants rely, in essence, on two illegalities as events giving rise to on the part of the European Union. The first concerns the breach of fundamental rights, in particular UPS\u2019 rights of defence, resulting from the Commission\u2019s failure to communicate the econometric model used in the decision at issue to analyse the effects of the concentration on prices. That illegality was found by the Court in the judgment of 7 March 2017, United Parcel Service v Commission (T\u2011194/13, EU:T:2017:144). The second alleged illegality lies in the errors of assessment of the concentration between UPS and TNT alleged by UPS in its action for damages in Case T\u2011834/17. Those errors concern the analysis of the effects of the concentration on prices, of the efficiencies and of FedEx\u2019s situation."], "id": "fcee2c12-c224-4002-a70e-84cbb06ba1eb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In February 2009, BV brought a claim against the Presidency of the Council of Ministers before the Tribunale di Torino (District Court, Turin, Italy) in order to establish the of the Italian Republic for failing to have implemented, correctly and fully, the obligations flowing from Directive 2004/80, in particular that laid down in Article 12(2) of that directive."], "id": "0c9e0cea-3c83-4cc5-add5-a91fa6acae3c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The appellant contends, finally, that the General Court also should have taken account of the Council\u2019s statements in the cases which gave rise to the judgment of 12 June 2013, HTTS v Council (T\u2011128/12 and T\u2011182/12, not published, EU:T:2013:312), from which it is clear that at the beginning of 2012 the Council did not have the information upon which it relies by way of defence in the action before the General Court in order to demonstrate that the first condition for of the European Union is not met."], "id": "af4c39fc-3259-4c11-a33c-dcd35cd30d33", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, the error committed by the Commission therefore appears to be excusable. Given the lack of clarity and the difficulties in interpreting the relevant provisions in Annex I to Regulation No 1272/2008 regarding the consideration that can be given to factors other than those expressly provided for when applying the summation method, the Commission\u2019s conduct is close to that which could reasonably be expected from an administrative authority exercising ordinary care and diligence in an analogous situation, that is to say, a situation characterised by scientific complexity connected to the classification of a substance of unknown composition such as CTPHT with the purpose of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. That conduct is not equivalent to a manifest and grave disregard of the limits on the Commission\u2019s discretion. Therefore, the error committed does not constitute a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law, with the result that the European Union has not, in any event, incurred in the present case. That finding applies equally to the infringement of the summation method and, for the sake of completeness and on the grounds set out above, to the alleged breach of the duty of diligence."], "id": "32cefeb1-e8d0-425c-ae7e-88903455c6cd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The applicants at first instance submit, first, that Mallis is not relevant, since it concerned an action for annulment and not an action in . They contend that it is apparent from the case-law that the admissibility of an action in non-contractual liability is not subject to the condition that the body has the power to adopt binding acts. To deny the possibility of the European Union\u2019s assuming liability for acts adopted by the Euro Group would amount to disregarding the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. Secondly, they dispute the argument that the Euro Group was not established by the Treaties. Its existence was in fact formalised by the Treaty of Lisbon, by means of Article 137 TFEU and Protocol No 14. Thirdly, the Euro Group is not merely an informal discussion forum; it has responsibilities relating to the development of the economic and budgetary policies of the European Union. Lastly, the applicants at first instance deny that individuals may have recourse to other legal remedies in order to obtain legal protection, principally for two reasons: the assumption of liability by the Commission in the exercise of its powers cannot substitute for the assumption of liability by the Euro Group, and the possibility of bringing legal proceedings before the national courts is not satisfactory for individuals, since only acts attributable to the national authorities, not those adopted by bodies established by the Treaties, may be challenged."], "id": "3b0a401b-2084-4ebc-b134-f6946b82c299", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that in respect of its handling of the request for assistance only did the appointing authority infringe both Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and the reasonable time principle, and in those circumstances it is justified that should arise, on the part of the Parliament, in favour of the applicants."], "id": "5fd2a67b-3c95-452e-ac7c-aee86889183c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, after concluding that there was not a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law, the General Court, in paragraph 92 of the judgment under appeal, did not go on to examine the other conditions which must each be met in order for the European Union to incur (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 April 2007, Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission, C\u2011282/05 P, EU:C:2007:226, paragraph 57)."], "id": "98da3ab5-58a7-4dab-b367-dda850150ccc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["Similarly, the Court has held, in a dispute concerning the of the European Union, that, in order to determine which court has jurisdiction to hear a specific action, brought against the Union, seeking compensation for damage, it must be assessed whether the action in question concerns the Union\u2019s contractual liability or its non-contractual liability, and that the mere invocation of rules of law not flowing from a contract relevant in the case, but which are binding on the parties, cannot have the consequence of altering the contractual nature of the dispute and thus removing it from the jurisdiction of the competent court or tribunal. If it were otherwise, the nature of the dispute and, consequently, the court or tribunal with jurisdiction, could be changed at the whim of the rules invoked by the parties, which would go against the rules on the jurisdiction of the various courts ratione materiae (judgment of 18 April 2013, Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg, C\u2011103/11 P, EU:C:2013:245, paragraphs 61 and 65)."], "id": "63744b06-b93b-4296-922d-d60d8e4f7e85", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["The applicants at first instance in Cases C\u2011597/18 P and C\u2011598/18 P contest the merits of the single ground of appeal put forward by the Council. They submit, first, that the Court\u2019s statement in paragraph 61 of the judgment of 20 September 2016, Mallis and Others v Commission and ECB (C\u2011105/15 P to C\u2011109/15 P, EU:C:2016:702), that the Euro Group cannot be classified as a \u2018body, office or agency of the European Union\u2019 within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU, is not relevant as that judgment related to the admissibility of an action for annulment against the Euro Group, which is a remedy separate from that of an action, provided for in the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, to establish of the European Union."], "id": "b41bd94d-3895-49b4-be67-1147ec0d6535", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "non-contractual liability", "masked_sentences": ["99 Thirdly, the appellants emphasise that, contrary to the reasoning employed by the General Court in the order under appeal, the two claims in question did not seek to obtain the same result, namely the replacement of the acts at issue which make up the legislative package in question with new measures that will have to achieve a greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions than is laid down currently. In their claim invoking the of the Union, the appellants requested measures targeting the legislative package regarding greenhouse gas emissions, whereas the basis underlying the liability of the Union is much broader. That liability is based on a continuous breach of higher-ranking rules of law which began in 1992."], "id": "1d1c6eae-7a40-45f0-928e-e40059317496", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["The Hungarian Government also relies on the case-law concerning the primacy of the most specific legal basis. When Directive 96/71 was adopted, the general basis of the in relation to freedom to provide services was used because no other, more specific basis existed. By the time Directive 2018/957 was adopted, that more specific basis did exist (Article 153 TFEU) and that is the basis which the EU legislature ought to have used."], "id": "af7a95e6-a2bb-41b4-aa69-2bce793b9354", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Regional Court, Ravensburg, Germany)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2007/46/EC \u2013 Approval of motor vehicles \u2013 Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 \u2013 Article 5(2) \u2013 Diesel engine \u2013 Pollutant emissions \u2013 Reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions limited by a \u2018temperature window\u2019 \u2013 Defeat device \u2013 Protection of the interests of an individual purchaser of a vehicle equipped with an unlawful defeat device \u2013 Right to compensation from vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability \u2013 Method of calculating compensation \u2013 Principle of effectiveness \u2013 Article 267 TFEU \u2013 Discretion of a single judge to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling)"], "id": "9740b3a2-8e38-4a06-9dbb-a198f8b73232", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 \u2013 Requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products \u2013 Single national accreditation body \u2013 Issuing of the accreditation certificate to conformity assessment bodies \u2013 Accreditation body having its seat in a third State \u2013 Article 56 TFEU \u2013 Article 102 TFEU \u2013 Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Validity)"], "id": "106014b6-65bc-4855-a980-678e4a1d3338", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Telecommunications sector \u2014 Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of systems providing mobile satellite services \u2014 Decision No 626/2008/EC \u2014 Article 4(1)(c), Article 7(1), and Article 8(1) \u2014 Complementary ground components \u2014 Authorisations issued by Member States \u2014 Requirement for operators to provide service coverage for a certain percentage of the population and the territory \u2014 Non-compliance \u2014 Effect)"], "id": "79e7d487-c674-4661-a96e-76bb3617575b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["The Hungarian Government submits that Articles 53(1) TFEU and 62 TFEU, which provide for the in relation to the freedom to provide services, are not an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Directive 2018/957. Taking into account its purpose and its content, that directive applies only, or principally, to the protection of workers, meaning that the EU legislature ought, for the purpose of adopting the directive, have taken Article 153 TFEU as the legal basis or, at least, as the principal legal basis in relation to social policy."], "id": "18389c27-18b6-4874-9fe0-66ac4aca9ff4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 \u2013 Motor vehicles \u2013 Article 3(10) \u2013 Article 5(1) and (2) \u2013 Diesel engines \u2013 Pollutant emissions \u2013 Software installed in the electronic engine controller \u2013 Exhaust gas recirculation valve \u2013 Reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions limited by a \u2018temperature window\u2019 \u2013 Defeat device \u2013 Authorisation of such a device where the need is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident \u2013 Device installed during the repair of the vehicle \u2013 Directive 1999/44/EC \u2013 Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees \u2013 Goods in conformity with the contract of sale \u2013 Article 2(2)(d) \u2013 Presumption of conformity of goods which show the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect \u2013 Valid EC type-approval \u2013 Article 3(6) \u2013 Purchase of the vehicle concerned even though the consumer had been aware of the presence of the defeat device at the time of the sale \u2013 Minor lack of conformity)"], "id": "b007930e-bfb0-43b2-9022-8c5cf74d3b0b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Telecommunications sector \u2013 Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for bringing into operation systems providing mobile satellite services \u2013 Decision No 626/2008/EC \u2013 Article 2(2)(a) and (b) \u2013 Article 4(1)(c)(ii) \u2013 Article 7(1) and (2) \u2013 Article 8(1) and (3) \u2013 Mobile satellite systems \u2013 Concept of \u2018mobile earth station\u2019 \u2013 Concept of \u2018complementary ground components\u2019 \u2013 Concept of \u2018required quality\u2019 \u2013 Respective role of satellite and ground components \u2013 Requirement for a selected operator of mobile satellite systems to provide service for a certain percentage of the population and territory \u2013 Non-compliance \u2013 Effect)"], "id": "2f2b3d10-a6ba-4c27-b828-aa9526d67cc2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["In accordance with [Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the , regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1)], it is necessary to replace, reduce or refine testing on vertebrate animals. Implementation of this Regulation should be based on the use of alternative test methods, suitable for the assessment of health and environmental hazards of chemicals, wherever possible. The use of animals should be avoided by recourse to alternative methods validated by the Commission or international bodies, or recognised by the Commission or [ECHA] as appropriate to meet the information requirements under this Regulation."], "id": "ed31ba5f-42ee-449c-a73f-f52047a2ca59", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["The de facto and de jure situation resulting from th[e] national differences [between the laws of the various Member States in the field of consumer credit] in some cases leads to distortions of competition among creditors in the Community and creates obstacles to the internal market where Member States have adopted different mandatory provisions more stringent than those provided for in [Council] Directive 87/102/EEC [of 22 December 1986 for the and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48)]. It restricts consumers\u2019 ability to make direct use of the gradually increasing availability of cross-border credit. Those distortions and restrictions may in turn have consequences in terms of the demand for goods and services."], "id": "d67728fe-1e43-444a-b20c-21b188b06f2f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["Whereas attainment of the objectives at which this is aiming requires that the conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a registered trade mark are, in general, identical in all Member States; whereas, to this end, it is necessary to list examples of signs which may constitute a trade mark, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings; whereas the grounds for refusal or invalidity concerning the trade mark itself, for example, the absence of any distinctive character, or concerning conflicts between the trade mark and earlier rights, are to be listed in an exhaustive manner, even if some of these grounds are listed as an option for the Member States which will therefore be able to maintain or introduce those grounds in their legislation; whereas Member States will be able to maintain or introduce into their legislation grounds of refusal or invalidity linked to conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a trade mark for which there is no provision of approximation, concerning, for example, the eligibility for the grant of a trade mark, the renewal of the trade mark or rules on fees, or related to the non-compliance with procedural rules;"], "id": "0b9f5fb6-040d-4191-b0dd-2da28f7c9d07", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 of the Member States \u2014 Trade marks \u2014 Identification of the goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought \u2014 Requirement of clarity and precision \u2014 Bad faith \u2014 Bad faith due to the lack of intent to use the trade mark for the goods or services specified \u2014 Interpretation of the judgment of 19 June 2012, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (C\u2011307/10, EU:C:2012:361))"], "id": "db8f334f-427d-4bf9-a1a2-eb4a5a210df5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Community trade mark \u2014 Regulation (EC) No 40/94 \u2014 Articles 7 and 51 \u2014 First Directive 89/104/EEC \u2014 Articles 3 and 13 \u2014 Identification of the goods or services covered by the registration \u2014 Failure to comply with the requirements of clarity and precision \u2014 Bad faith of the applicant \u2014 No intention to use the trade mark for the goods or services covered by the registration \u2014 Total or partial invalidity of the trade mark \u2014 National legislation requiring the applicant to state that he or she intends to use the trade mark applied for)"], "id": "77e1b4be-a168-474b-9abf-248cba3ddb3f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary reference \u2013 \u2013 Copyright and related rights \u2013 Directive 2001/29/EC \u2013 Article 2 \u2013 Reproduction right \u2013 Article 5(2)(b) \u2013 Private copying exception \u2013 Servers owned by third parties made available to natural persons for private use \u2013 Provision of a cloud computing service \u2013 Interpretation of terms \u2018on any medium\u2019 \u2013 Fair compensation)"], "id": "71954e82-37fa-4e3e-b996-810217120541", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, the Republic of Austria contends that the General Court was wrong to hold that it did not need to take account of the extent to which the measures at issue were detrimental to key environmental principles, such as the precautionary principle, the \u2018polluter pays\u2019 principle and the sustainability principle. Quite apart from the fact that the Republic of Austria did not go beyond the level of assertion as far as alleged environmental damage is concerned, one should also observe that Article 107 TFEU is located within Title VII, which prescribes common rules on competition, taxation and the . The task of the Commission, therefore, is, as Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU makes clear, simply to assess whether the State measure in question \u2018may be considered to be compatible with the internal market\u2019."], "id": "4165e86d-f703-41e5-8b87-5f1f1f4d0e3e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Cosmetic products \u2014 Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 \u2014 Article 19 \u2014 Consumer information \u2014 Labelling \u2014 Information that must appear on the container and packaging \u2014 Function of the cosmetic product \u2014 Protection of human health \u2014 Information that may appear on an enclosed or attached leaflet, label, tape, tag or card \u2014 Labelling in a foreign language \u2014 Cosmetic product packaging which contains a reference to a product catalogue drafted in the language of the consumer)"], "id": "5c261698-f3be-44cf-a38d-a58e7ff86673", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["10 More precisely, the referring court wonders about the compatibility of that method with Article 114(3) TFEU, relating to the concerning health, and with the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (signed in Geneva on 21 May 2003, to which the European Union and its Member States are parties) and Articles 24 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), which concern, respectively, the rights of the child and health care."], "id": "99a67b87-e232-436d-a565-8410e4b00cf3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Cosmetic products \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 \u2013 Article 19 \u2013 Consumer information \u2013 Labelling \u2013 Information that must appear on the product container and packaging \u2013 Labelling in a foreign language \u2013 \u2018Function of the cosmetic product\u2019 \u2013 Concept \u2013 Cosmetic product packaging which contains a reference to a detailed product catalogue drafted in the language of the consumer)"], "id": "caa005c3-2266-4dea-9e94-4b30bff5fe4a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["28 Secondly, that interpretation also follows from the position of those provisions within the Treaties. Article 114(2) TFEU forms part of Chapter 3, entitled \u2018Approximation of laws\u2019, which follows Chapter 2, entitled \u2018Tax provisions\u2019, within Title VII, concerning \u2018common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws\u2019 of the FEU Treaty. Consequently, anything relating to Chapter 3, namely the , does not, and cannot, relate to that which falls within Chapter 2, namely tax provisions."], "id": "9d438d0a-1c2b-4e3a-8d50-5a60059d9967", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Trade marks \u2013 Directive 2008/95/EC \u2013 Article 12(1) \u2013 Genuine use of trade mark \u2013 Burden of proof \u2013 Article 13 \u2013 Proof of use \u2018in respect of some of the goods or services\u2019 \u2013 Trade mark covering a car model the production of which has stopped \u2013 Use of the trade mark in respect of replacement parts as well as for services relating to that model \u2013 Use of the trade mark for used vehicles \u2013 Article 351 TFEU \u2013 Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation \u2013 Reciprocal protection of patents, designs and trade marks)"], "id": "2040aff6-2053-43c0-85f6-268538cf8e56", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["The provision of legal services characteristically reflects peculiarities intrinsically linked to the diverse traditions of the Member States. Legal practice generally requires excellent knowledge of all the rules resulting from those traditions. Nevertheless, on account of its long and complex history, Europe is home to many traditions, attributable to the diversity of legal cultures, each of which has its own particular features. Indeed, despite the various cultural exchanges that have taken place between the European nations and the driven as part of the integration process, the legal and judicial systems of the Member States remain anchored in the tradition of each State, which is reflected not only in their institutions but also in their law and rules of ethics. As important as it may be to preserve that diversity of legal traditions, it is scarcely in doubt that doing so can create obstacles to the exercise of the legal profession. Lawyers are generally required to familiarise themselves with the rules in force in another Member State before they can provide their services in that state, which involves a certain amount of effort in order to adapt."], "id": "529923b4-4c95-458b-a893-0e40de8338d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["On 12 November 1997, the European Commission gave a mandate to the European Committee for Standardisation [(CEN)], under reference M/119, concerning the development of harmonised standards on floorings. Those standards were to include a series of essential characteristics, such as reaction to fire, water tightness, breaking strength, and emission of asbestos, formaldehyde and pentachlorophenol. Mandate M/119 was issued pursuant to [Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the , regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12)] and amended by mandate M/137 of 25 July 2000 and by mandate M/119 rev. 1 of 22 June 2010, so as to include the emission of a series of other dangerous substances such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)."], "id": "e567473c-ccc1-4dfd-91fd-7b1d55fc59d8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2003/6/EC \u2013 Article 14(3) \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 \u2013 Article 30(1)(b) \u2013 Market abuse \u2013 Administrative sanctions of a criminal nature \u2013 Failure to cooperate with the competent authorities \u2013 Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Right to remain silent and to avoid self-incrimination)"], "id": "31f47cc1-173a-4884-be9e-b0ca150c9081", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2009/103/EC \u2013 Motor vehicle civil liability insurance \u2013 Article 3(1) \u2013 Obligation to take out a civil liability insurance contract relating to the use of motor vehicles \u2013 Vehicle not capable of being driven due to its technical state \u2013 Division of tasks under Article 267 TFEU \u2013 Interpretation and application of EU law)"], "id": "8474cd31-b6e8-4d79-8f99-ea8d16fe8aaf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "approximation of laws", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the legal basis, the purpose of the Framework Decision and the context in which it was adopted that it is an instrument (i) relating only to criminal matters; (ii) aiming to ensure compatibility of laws of Member States to the extent necessary for their cooperation, (iii) introducing for Member States the obligation to take the necessary measures to confiscate crime-related instrumentalities and proceeds; and (iv) approximating Member States\u2019 laws in the matters covered, with a view to facilitating mutual recognition to confiscation orders. The concept is one of minimum (\u2018to the extent necessary for the cooperation\u2019)."], "id": "3b158503-5b52-451d-9114-dee49041c248", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In the defence, Hungary submits that, even if the action is admissible, it must be dismissed at the outset on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirements applicable to the taking of evidence. It argues that it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the infringements in respect of which that institution is seeking a declaration, and that the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose. In the present case, that institution has not produced any evidence that the Transparency Law has had effects in practice on the enshrined in Article 63 TFEU."], "id": "5bafe541-637f-4e0c-8dd3-363e15cd3f45", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["However, it is apparent from settled case-law of the Court that that provision, in so far as it is a derogation from the fundamental principle of the , is to be interpreted strictly. Accordingly, it cannot be interpreted as meaning that all tax legislation which draws a distinction between taxpayers on the basis of their place of residence or the State in which they invest their capital is automatically compatible with the FEU Treaty. Indeed, the derogation in Article 65(1)(a) TFEU is itself limited by Article 65(3) TFEU, which provides that the national provisions referred to in paragraph 1 of that article \u2018shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 63 [TFEU]\u2019."], "id": "3ea6055b-3ce3-43bd-b7c4-64c27ec5a532", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["By limiting the extent of the economic activity that may be exercised by Italian banks taking a particular legal form, such legislation is liable to dissuade investors from Member States other than the Italian Republic and from third countries from acquiring shares in the capital of those banks and, as a result, constitute a restriction on the , which is prohibited, in principle, by Article 63 TFEU."], "id": "6a9785f1-2326-43e7-b7d4-a874a0dd81fc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In this respect, the \u2013 unlike the other fundamental freedoms \u2013 contains a limitation of its scope of protection in the case of tax law restrictions. This is because, under Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, Article 63 TFEU is to be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested. This is also understandable, in the light of their wider scope of application. Unlike the other fundamental freedoms, the free movement of capital also covers third-country situations."], "id": "39e1a443-ee40-4d59-a3f6-292f00b4c614", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The reason why a large number of judgments have nonetheless assessed the comparability of the situations at the justification stage rather than at the stage where the existence of a restriction is assessed seems to be related to the approach adopted in certain judgments, that is to say, one which presents Article 65(1)(a) TFEU as establishing a derogation from the fundamental principle of the , and which therefore, must be interpreted strictly."], "id": "e7affe55-c5cc-4e18-82d8-4dd7651be8f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In my opinion, the answer to this question could only be in the negative. Indeed, in a free market economy, it must be assumed that individuals act rationally. Accordingly, Member States cannot be held accountable for the fact that a taxable person did not opt for the regime that would have minimised his or her tax burden. Besides, the fact that non-residents had to choose, according to their situation, which regime was best for them, rather than having a specific regime imposed on them, cannot in itself constitute a form of restriction on the . In order for the existence of a restriction to be established, there must be discrimination. Accordingly, as I have previously mentioned, what is important is that non-residents have the option, if they wish, of electing to be taxed for capital gains tax purposes on exactly the same basis as that which applies to residents."], "id": "e5f14c1f-0e6b-4155-90e2-c2f648aef681", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["87 In that regard, even if Article 16(2), point (3) of the ZKPO, which concerns the interpretation of national law, establishes an irrebuttable presumption of tax avoidance, without allowing the interested parties, particularly in the context of a legal challenge, to produce information relating to possible commercial reasons justifying the conclusion of interest-free loans, it must be stated that that rule applies in the same way to all interest-free loans, whether or not they involve non-resident companies. Therefore, as regards that rule, that provision does not entail any restriction on the falling within Article 63 TFEU."], "id": "0eaf5c19-658e-43d1-9181-d8e5ebc8b125", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted that the intention to ensure the dispersion of the shareholder structure of certain financial investment companies constitutes an economic ground which, moreover, concerns only persons holding shares in such companies. In accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, economic grounds cannot constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a restriction on the (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 July 2010, Commission v Portugal, C\u2011171/08, EU:C:2010:412, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "6636ab32-de02-401c-876a-f5016df5664d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Admissibility \u2014 Article 63 et seq. TFEU \u2014 \u2014 Article 107 et seq. TFEU \u2014 State aid \u2014 Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Freedom to conduct a business \u2014 Right to property \u2014 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 \u2014 Prudential requirements applicable to credit institutions and investment firms \u2014 Article 29 \u2014 Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 \u2014 Article 6(4) \u2014 Prudential supervision of credit institutions \u2014 Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) \u2014 Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 \u2014 Regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions \u2014 National regulation imposing an asset threshold on people\u2019s banks established as cooperative societies and allowing the right to redeem shares by the withdrawing shareholder to be limited)"], "id": "6808c532-3994-4b8d-8714-c153a040c19e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In the latter case, it is necessary to examine the possible justification for that restriction. In accordance with settled case-law of the Court, for national tax legislation which distinguishes between domestic and foreign persons to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the , the difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable (see Section 2) or be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest (see Section 3). In that context, the assessment of the free movement of capital is to be based on the other fundamental freedoms, whereby the particularities of the free movement of capital must be taken into account (see Section 1)."], "id": "dbfc029b-9287-4c3c-a3bf-a3af5fdd7a0f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Now that the Charter has entered into force, it is necessary to determine when the examination of a hypothetical infringement of the must be carried out in line with that traditional technique (assessment of necessity, appropriateness and proportionality) and when it must be carried out in the light of the fundamental freedoms, that is, using more stringent review criteria."], "id": "0f0824d5-67da-452c-b392-225994309605", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Do Articles 3 and 63 et seq. TFEU, on competition in the internal market and , preclude a national provision such as that introduced by Article 1 of Decree-Law No 3/2015 \u2026 which limits the exercise of cooperative banking activities within a given asset limit, requiring the bank concerned to be converted into a company limited by shares if it should exceed that limit?"], "id": "566316d1-b0f0-46a4-82f3-fb2bd513a817", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["While Member States have the ability to investigate when undertakings have a dominant position (and to impose specific obligations on those undertakings as a result), is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005, in the version in force on the date of adoption of the contested decision, according to which \u201cundertakings, including through subsidiaries or affiliates, whose revenues in the electronic communications sector, as defined by Article 18 of Legislative Decree No 259 of 1 August 2003, exceed 40 per cent of the total revenues in that sector, may not earn, within the Integrated Communications System, revenues exceeding 10 per cent of that system\u201d, incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of laid down in Article 63 TFEU? This question is asked in so far as that provision, by reference to Article 18 of the Codice delle comunicazioni elettroniche (Electronic Communications Code), restricts the sector in question to the markets that are susceptible to ex ante regulation, regardless of what commonly happens, which is that information (the pluralism of which the rule is designed to protect) is increasingly conveyed by the use of the internet, personal computers and mobile telephony, which is sufficient to make it unreasonable to exclude from that sector, in particular, mobile telephone retail services, simply because they operate entirely competitively. This question is also asked in the light of the fact that, for the purposes of applying the aforementioned Article 43(11) specifically in the course of the present proceedings, AGCom has defined the limits of the electronic communications sector by taking into consideration only the markets where at least one analysis has been carried out since the entry into force of the Electronic Communications Code, that is, from 2003 to date, and with revenues resulting from the last useful assessment, carried out in 2015?"], "id": "9fa8a8ab-3c68-43e8-838a-8dc57086f5cb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["88 By contrast, the Court has already held that national legislation under which a non-resident company is taxed, by means of tax withheld at source by a resident company, on the interest which it is paid by the latter without it being possible to deduct expenses, such as interest expenditure, that are directly related to the lending at issue, whereas such a possibility of deduction is accorded to resident companies receiving interest from another resident company, constitutes a restriction on the (judgment of 26 February 2019, N Luxembourg 1 and Others, C\u2011115/16, C\u2011118/16, C\u2011119/16 and C\u2011299/16, EU:C:2019:134, paragraph 175 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "520360c2-e19e-465d-a2d8-9fddc0c9eb2d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["By these references for a preliminary ruling, the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) is asking the Court to rule on the compatibility with EU law and, in particular, with reference to the provisions of the Treaties on the and freedom of establishment, of Italian legislation which limits to what I shall term \u2018closed-ended\u2019 real estate investment funds the availability of a reduction by half of the mortgage registration tax and the land registry fee payable upon acquisitions of commercial real estate on behalf of real estate investment funds. The case raises once again issues of restriction on the free movement of capital in the field of taxation."], "id": "25d25ece-e938-41bb-a93f-a99393bc58a6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["23 In those circumstances the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question, which is worded identically in Cases C\u2011478/19 and C\u2011479/19, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018Does EU \u2013 law in particular the provisions [of the Treaties] concerning freedom of establishment and , as interpreted by the Court \u2010 preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 35(10-ter) of [Decree-Law No 223/2006] (in so far as it grants relief on mortgage registration tax and the land registry fee only in respect of closed-ended real estate investment funds)?\u2019"], "id": "ed6dd47e-a357-424e-bf36-2ade5c084a9a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In the judgment in Welte, the Court held that the national legislation at issue constituted a restriction on the on the ground that, by making the application of a tax-free allowance in respect of the immovable property concerned dependent on the place of residence of the deceased and the heir at the time of the death, it led to succession between non-residents including such property being subject to a higher tax burden than that involving at least one resident, and therefore had the effect of reducing the value of the succession at issue."], "id": "79bffd22-274d-4fff-82e7-211cbb278952", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Those various measures, which were introduced together and which pursue a common objective, put in place a set of obligations which, having regard to their content and their combined effects, are such as to restrict the which may be relied upon both by civil society organisations established in Hungary, as the beneficiaries of capital movements taking the form of financial support sent to them from other Member States or third countries, and by the natural and legal persons who grant them such financial support and who are therefore behind those capital movements."], "id": "19960792-4886-46be-ad72-b46238ba6501", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Does Article 63 TFEU on the or Article 56 TFEU on the freedom to provide services preclude tax rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, contained in Article 22 of the Statute of Tax Benefits, which provide for a withholding to be made, in full discharge of liability, from dividends distributed by Portuguese companies and received by collective investment undertakings not resident in Portugal and established in other EU [Member States], whereas collective investment undertakings formed under Portuguese tax law and resident for tax purposes in Portugal can benefit from an exemption from the withholding at source made on the said income?"], "id": "4788d144-f25e-46f1-a461-dd3334662820", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, the referring court observes that it is necessary to assess the appropriateness and proportionality of the restrictions imposed by the provision at issue in the main proceedings not only in relation to the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the , but also in relation to principles such as the freedom and pluralism of the media."], "id": "1bb1bf5d-4265-4058-9fef-03cbb5102ee9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Even if Law No LXXVI of 2017 were applicable in a non-discriminatory way, that would not prevent it from constituting a restriction on the , given the onerous nature of the obligations of declaration, registration and publication it imposes, in addition to their associated deterrent effects. Moreover, the fact that the obligations of declaration and publication are ex post does not affect their restrictiveness even though they are less onerous than an ex ante obligation."], "id": "8c57bf24-5645-46a6-b9ff-ddb84507a524", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Next, as the German Government stated in its written observations and subject to verification by the referring court, there is no bilateral convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Austria on the taxation of inheritance tax. In those circumstances, the Member State in the territory on which the immovable property that is the subject of the inheritance is situated cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the stemming from its appropriate legislation, rely on the possibility, beyond its control, of the heir benefiting from a similar deduction granted by another Member State, which may, in whole or in part, offset the harm suffered by the latter due to the Member State in which that immovable property is situated not taking into account, when calculating the inheritance tax, liabilities under the reserved portions (see, inter alia, judgments of 11 September 2008, Eckelkamp and Others, C\u201111/07, EU:C:2008:489, paragraphs 67 and 68; of 11 September 2008, Arens-Sikken, C\u201143/07, EU:C:2008:490, paragraphs 64 and 65; and of 22 April 2010, Mattner, C\u2011510/08, EU:C:2010:216, paragraph 42)."], "id": "c5535af1-2767-4373-9e0d-972bd3beca6c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["21. In the first place, the referring court queries whether the fact that reimbursement of withheld tax on income from capital to companies resident abroad that have an equity holding of less than 10% or 15% in a resident company is subject to stricter conditions than reimbursement of that tax to resident companies that have an equivalent equity holding in a resident company is contrary to Article 63 TFEU. Indeed, under point 5 of the second sentence of Paragraph 32(5) of the KStG, withheld tax is reimbursed to foreign companies only if they, or their direct or indirect shareholders, cannot offset it or deduct it as an operating cost or as work-related outgoings. The referring court also points out that the requirement, laid down in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 32(5) of the KStG, that proof of the foregoing must be provided in the form of a certificate from the foreign tax authorities does not apply to the reimbursement of tax on income from capital to resident companies. It is unsure whether those rules, which, according to it, constitute an interference with the , are justified in the light of Article 65(1)(a) TFEU and of the criteria established by the Court in, inter alia, the judgment of 8 November 2007, Amurta (C\u2011379/05, EU:C:2007:655)."], "id": "de6b4681-7557-4fbd-a740-7092527edf7d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In the fourth place, the German Government maintains that an interpretation of the Directives in the light of their legal bases and of fundamental rights and freedoms supports its position. It emphasises, first, that the Directives were adopted on the basis of Articles 47(2), 55 and 95 of the EC Treaty, the aim of which is to make it easier to exercise the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services and the object of which is the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Consequently, those provisions of the Treaty cannot constitute the legal basis for the adoption of provisions which apply to the economic activities of undertakings operating in a third country. Secondly, the Directives impose obligations on vertically integrated undertakings that restrict the , within the meaning of Article 63 TFEU, as well as the freedom of undertakings and those who work for them to conduct a business, enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), as well as the right to property enshrined in Article 17(1) of the Charter. To the extent that the activities of third-country undertakings carried on outside the European Union produce no effects on the internal market, such restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms are not necessary to attain the objective of ensuring the efficient, non-discriminatory operation of transmission systems within the European Union."], "id": "eeb97256-bc83-4dcf-a788-4cbbc9307c55", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["As the Court has consistently held, a State measure which restricts the is permissible only if, in the first place, it is justified by one of the reasons referred to in Article 65 TFEU or by an overriding reason in the public interest and, in the second place, it observes the principle of proportionality, a condition that requires the measure to be appropriate for ensuring, in a consistent and systematic manner, the attainment of the objective pursued and not to go beyond what is necessary in order for it to be attained (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary(Rights of usufruct over agricultural land), C\u2011235/17, EU:C:2019:432, paragraphs 59 to 61 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "32c17176-7e02-4e75-92a5-2cab82015b83", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Where, as in this instance, the is in issue, the transactions benefitting from that freedom are not only those liable to restriction under Articles 64 TFEU and 65 TFEU but also those liable to any other restriction, the scrutiny of which requires an examination of whether, pursuant to the Treaties, the fundamental rights concerned have been respected. Naturally, those rights may include the right to acquire property, the right to work and the freedom of association."], "id": "dbd29735-63f6-4b76-aa7c-849727ccc49f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["MK is a resident of France. The essence of the claim made by him is that he has been required to pay a higher rate of capital gains tax on the disposal of a Portuguese asset by reason of his non-resident status in that country. The present case accordingly raises the question of whether, in order to establish the existence of discrimination \u2013 and, by extension, a restriction on the \u2013 it is necessary to make an overall assessment of all the consequences arising from the application of a special taxation regime. Put another way, the issue is whether for this purpose one must compare all the tax options available to persons residing in another Member State with those available to the residents of the Member State of taxation or, alternatively, whether that comparison should be made in relation to each of those options considered in isolation?"], "id": "532febcc-0d62-461c-b41e-93b8016305d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In the course of the proceedings before the Financial Authority and then before the Curtea de Apel Bucure\u0219ti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), the applicants in the main proceedings submitted that the relevant national provisions infringe, inter alia, the provisions of EU law on the . They also argued that the concept of \u2018concerted action\u2019, as provided for in EU law, applies only in the context of a binding takeover bid, since the EU legislature presumes that persons who are controlled or who control others act in concert and that, together, they seek to assume control of the issuing company through the execution of the bid or the frustration thereof. Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/25 establishes only a presumption as regards persons controlled by another person holding the majority of voting rights."], "id": "68a1ad65-2a77-4f9a-a8f0-38082ce404b6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that, viewed together, the obligations of registration, declaration and publication imposed on the \u2018organisations in receipt of support from abroad\u2019 under Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Transparency Law and the penalties provided for in Paragraph 3 of that law constitute a restriction on the , prohibited by Article 63 TFEU unless it is justified in accordance with the FEU Treaty and with the case-law."], "id": "67301885-2a24-4d10-8b23-ea78ec18acbc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In my view, if national legislation is called into question on the grounds of infringement of Article 63 TFEU without express reference to a possible breach of the Charter (in other words, if the complaint relates to the mere restriction of the as such, without associating that restriction with the breach of a particular fundamental right), the judicial test must be that always used by the Court for this task: the traditional test."], "id": "ff9e566b-a1bf-4d93-93e7-61911cbbca5e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In that connection, it should be observed that, although it is for each Member State to organise its system for taxing distributed profits and to define, in that context, the tax base which applies to the shareholder receiving the dividends, it is settled case-law that Member States must nevertheless exercise their fiscal autonomy in accordance with the requirements of EU law, in particular those imposed by the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the , which requires that the tax system be designed to be non-discriminatory (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 January 2020, K\u00f6ln-Aktienfonds Deka, C\u2011156/17, EU:C:2020:51, paragraphs 42 and 45 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "a295b343-c8fc-455b-82fa-7566ad11cdb0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["11 It should be recalled that when a national measure concerns several of the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the Treaties, the Court will in principle examine the measure in dispute in relation to only one of those freedoms if it appears, in the light of the subject matter of that measure, that the other freedoms are entirely secondary in relation to that freedom and may be considered together with it (see, to that effect, concerning a measure relating to both and freedom of establishment, judgments of 13 November 2012, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, C\u201135/11, EU:C:2012:707, paragraphs 89 to 93, and of 28 February 2013, Beker and Beker, C\u2011168/11, EU:C:2013:117, paragraphs 25 to 31 and, concerning a measure relating to both the free movement of capital and the freedom to provide services, judgment of 26 May 2016, NN (L) International, C\u201148/15, EU:C:2015:356, paragraph 39)."], "id": "cd4fb2d7-c76b-49a0-9748-1f89954ffe39", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Secondly, nor can the obligations of registration, declaration and publication established by the Transparency Law and the accompanying penalties be regarded as having a deterrent effect on the . Those obligations are drafted in objective and neutral terms. Furthermore, they exclusively concern natural or legal persons paying financial support over certain thresholds, of which there would not be many."], "id": "610a0cc7-9fe5-44ff-8262-be0de600dd3e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["112 In that regard, in accordance with the Court\u2019s settled case-law, a measure which restricts the is permissible only if it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest and observes the principle of proportionality, which means that the measure must be appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objective pursued and not to go beyond what is necessary in order for it to be attained (judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct over agricultural land), C\u2011235/17, EU:C:2019:432, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "9ac0d981-5ffb-4acb-bcd8-f8f7df98198d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, as regards the argument that it would be contrary to the to adopt a different tax base from that adopted by the Member States in which the dividends are paid for the calculation of the French tax credit, when the French Republic and those Member States intended to eliminate double taxation, it must be observed that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, referred to in paragraph 26 of the present judgment, each Member State is free to define, in compliance with Union law, the tax base which applies to shareholders receiving the dividends."], "id": "cf69a301-46a3-433c-b66b-914690852150", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In those circumstances, suffice it to state that Paragraph 108(4) and (5) of the 2013 Law on transitional measures must also be compatible, inter alia, with the principle of effectiveness, as recalled in paragraph 51 above, which means that it must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law, and with the fundamental freedoms, in particular the provided for in Article 63 TFEU."], "id": "85086752-600f-422c-bc14-37d16f5458b3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["E brought an action before the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) seeking the annulment of the decision of the Central Tax Committee. Before that court, E submitted that the taxation of the earnings distributed by the SICAV incorporated under Luxembourg law at issue as income from employment, in accordance with Paragraph 33c(3), is more stringent than the taxation of earnings distributed by an investment fund constituted under Finnish law as capital income and, consequently, contrary to the enshrined in Article 63 TFEU."], "id": "bb36d964-f1c4-480f-a773-6774ada01a0b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["33 Although that legislation is, prima facie, capable of being covered by both Article 43 EC and Article 56 EC (now, after amendment, Articles 49 and 63 TFEU), the fact remains that, in the context of the main proceedings, any restrictions on freedom of establishment resulting from that legislation are an inevitable consequence of the restriction of the and do not, therefore, justify an independent examination of that legislation in the light of Article 43 EC (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 March 2018, SEGRO and Horv\u00e1th, C\u201152/16 and C\u2011113/16, EU:C:2018:157, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "2b70e5fb-2693-4136-90d1-196cd81d0927", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The Court has also held that a distinction must therefore be made between the differences in treatment authorised by Article 65(1)(a) TFEU and discrimination prohibited by Article 65(3) TFEU. Before national tax legislation can be regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the , the difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest (judgment of 22 November 2018, Sofina and Others, C\u2011575/17, EU:C:2018:943, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "9d4c6bbe-4f19-4dba-8731-da0523feccc1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["47. A distinction must, therefore, be made between differences in treatment which are permitted under Article 65(1)(a) TFEU and discrimination which is prohibited by Article 65(3) TFEU. For the German legislation at issue to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the Treaty provisions on the , the difference in treatment resulting from that legislation must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest (judgment of 30 April 2020, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, C\u2011565/18, EU:C:2020:318, paragraph 24)."], "id": "e5972b6a-02e0-47a5-a622-e6a8ab4fe14d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["43 Consequently, it must be held that, as the referring court reasons, that difference in treatment is liable to discourage open-ended investment funds governed by the law of Member States other than the Italian Republic from acquiring real estate used for commercial purposes in Italy and therefore constitutes a restriction on the prohibited, as a rule, by Article 56 EC (now, after amendment, Article 63 TFEU)."], "id": "304bb4b7-03f4-4a1d-8091-2b3550017451", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the freedom to provide services appears to be secondary in relation to the . The legal conditions for the tax at issue, which concerns financial transactions, apply irrespective of whether or not those transactions involve a supply of services. In addition, the referring court is uncertain as to the possible restrictive effects which might result from the very introduction of such a tax, without identifying which aspects of it might specifically affect such a supply. Lastly, according to the information set out in the request for a preliminary ruling, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale paid the relevant tax in its capacity as a financial operator participating in the transactions at issue in the main proceedings, although no further information regarding those transactions or its involvement therein has been provided. In particular, the request does not state on what basis and for what purposes those transactions were traded."], "id": "d17e7304-f593-4656-9e00-24356f0ae2bf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Only in the event that the Court proceeds on the assumption that the situations are comparable is it necessary to examine whether the different taxation of resident and non-resident UCITS can be justified. According to the case-law of the Court, for national tax legislation to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty concerning the , the difference in treatment must be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest."], "id": "5a0885a7-8b3a-40e1-8b3a-f2c543c36815", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The information contained in the documents before the Court support the inference that Vivendi\u2019s acquisition of shares in, and taking control of, TIM involve the exercise of the right of establishment. Conversely, Vivendi\u2019s acquisition of a significant proportion of Mediaset\u2019s shares would fall either within the (if Vivendi\u2019s intention was simply to make a financial investment) or with the freedom of establishment (if Vivendi sought to intervene in Mediaset\u2019s management)."], "id": "55381cef-2e16-4f50-93bf-1f9f4d03c796", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["38. Like the Commission, it seems to me that, by its first question, the referring court primarily seeks to ascertain whether the German legislation at issue is compatible with the to the extent that it permits a refusal to reimburse tax on income from capital in respect of dividends from free-float shares to non-resident companies where those companies or a shareholder with a direct or indirect equity holding in them can offset that tax, deduct it as an operating cost or as work-related outgoings or carry it forward. That question is to be assessed in the light of the fact that resident companies that have an equivalent equity holding in another resident company are not subject to such a condition in order to obtain reimbursement of withheld tax on income from capital."], "id": "d4bd8acb-8e56-49a5-bcf8-9d46e86ecae1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["On 30 November 2018, MK challenged that tax assessment notice before the national court, the Tribunal Arbitral Tribut\u00e1rio (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa \u2013 CAAD) (Tax Arbitration Tribunal (Centre for Administrative Arbitration \u2013 CAAD), Portugal) on the ground that it is vitiated by illegality in that it is based on legislation which discriminates against taxable persons resident in the territory of an EU Member State other than the Portuguese Republic (\u2018non-residents\u2019) as compared with taxable persons resident in Portugal, and claimed, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 October 2007, Hollmann (C\u2011443/06, EU:C:2007:600), that that legal framework constitutes a restriction on the as enshrined in Article 63(1) TFEU."], "id": "8ce54e65-2151-43c5-915f-1b3a45587c1b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In this respect, the amendment in the Maastricht Treaty by which the current Article 65 TFEU was inserted has, in my opinion, lowered the level of protection afforded by the against restrictions based on tax legislation. Consequently, the free movement of capital must be attributed less weight than the other fundamental freedoms when weighed against the differentiation objectives of the Member States in such cases. In other words, a restriction on the free movement of capital can be justified more easily by tax law provisions that are linked to residency than, for example, a restriction on the freedom of establishment. I will return to this in the context of the examination of proportionality."], "id": "ccc9f48b-12b3-46e7-9500-987d41461539", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, it may be recalled that a restriction on the is permissible only if justified, in cases of direct discrimination, on grounds expressly provided for by the Treaty or, in the case of indirect discrimination, also by overriding reasons in the public interest and, if that is the case, only if it is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective in question and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it."], "id": "67ca862a-389c-4fe3-b4ee-1f0977b476d5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Given that the objective of the freedoms of movement is the completion of the internal market, the Court initially used a specific definition in that field. Indeed, where the Treaty prohibits the use of a specific criterion, direct discrimination occurs when a person is expressly treated less favourably on the basis of that criterion. There is instead an indirect discrimination when the criterion used appears to be superficially neutral while in practice placing persons fulfilling the prohibited criterion at a disadvantage as compared with others. On the basis of this approach, in the context of the exercise of freedoms of movement, including the , the Court used to consider that a direct discrimination occurred when a measure established a distinction according to nationality and an indirect discrimination arose when a measure, although based on another criterion, such as that of residence, led in fact to the same result."], "id": "69a8896c-9e93-493b-a46a-72620ac9732b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, it is solely a matter of weighing the applicant\u2019s freedom of movement of capital against the abovementioned overriding reasons of public interest in this specific case. In that context, it is first necessary \u2013 as explained above in point 64 et seq. \u2013 to take into account the fact that the must be attributed less weight when weighed against the differentiation objectives of the Member States. On the other hand, the guarantee of a minimum level of taxation, the effective enforcement of taxation claims and an appropriate allocation of the power to impose taxes are among the central public interests, as they serve to finance the State budget. Without a sufficient tax basis, the State cannot perform its tasks and fulfil its functions."], "id": "f43eb480-5b62-4789-8574-74db173446a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["All special rights held by Member States in companies should be viewed in the framework of the and the relevant provisions of the Treaty. Special rights held by Member States in companies which are provided for in private or public national law should be exempted from the \u201cbreakthrough\u201d rule if they are compatible with the Treaty.\u2019"], "id": "30e5d0fb-1104-4990-ac41-3b0c218ac33a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In fact, due to the use by Portugal of a progressive rate imposed on all income (including realised capital gains), (which is the regime which generally applies to residents) on the one hand and a fixed rate of capital gains on the other (which is the regime which is generally applicable to non-residents with no other income taxable in Portugal in respect of once-off capital gains), it is almost inevitable that, in certain comparable situations, some non-resident taxpayers will be treated less favorably than resident taxpayers. Indeed, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, any unjustified restriction, even of minor importance, on the is to be regarded as discriminatory. It is thus generally sufficient for a tax law to introduce direct or indirect discrimination in respect of even one taxable person in a cross-border situation, for that legislation might be considered incompatible with EU law."], "id": "0e2afea5-928c-4fbb-bc1e-7d63d617ded8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, it must be found that the tax practice according to which the recipient of dividends attached to listed shares could, for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of income tax, partly deduct those dividends provided, however, that the shares generating those dividends are listed on the Portuguese stock exchange, was such as to deter persons eligible for the tax advantage provided for in Article 31 of the EBF from making investments in non-resident companies, and therefore constitutes a restriction on the prohibited, in principle, by Article 63 TFEU."], "id": "57a97259-0c1c-4f4e-98e7-6beba41b9bc0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission, supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, submits, first, that the Transparency Law restricts the , treating movements of capital between Hungary, on one hand, and the other Member States and third countries, on the other hand, in an indirectly discriminatory manner. While not referring to nationality, that law applies by reference to a criterion relating to the existence of movements of capital originating from abroad, more specifically to financial support paid to civil society organisations established in Hungary by natural or legal persons with their place of residence or their registered office in another Member State or in a third country."], "id": "9ed4b9cf-9971-4c81-8d06-5ccc44f58993", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["59. In the same context, I also concur with the Commission that a mere deduction of the withheld tax on income from capital as an operating cost or as work-related outgoings by the non-resident company or by its direct or indirect shareholders, in their State of residence, would be insufficient to neutralise the restriction to the so identified. Thus, the Court has held that, although Belgian legislation allows the deduction, as an expense, of tax paid abroad from the taxable base of income before applying a tax rate of 25% to the net amount of the dividends received by a taxpayer established in Belgium, such a deduction does not entirely compensate for the effects of any restriction on the free movement of capital in the Member State from which the dividends were paid (judgment of 17 September 2015, Miljoen and Others, C\u201110/14, C\u201114/14 and C\u201117/14, EU:C:2015:608, paragraph 83)."], "id": "469d73c1-6ba4-4752-9f8f-02f96750624c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Articles 63 and 65 TFEU \u2013 Inheritance tax \u2013 National inheritance tax legislation \u2013 Unequal treatment of residents and non-residents \u2013 Limited tax liability \u2013 Domestic real property \u2013 Pro-rated allowance for non-residents \u2013 Not a restriction \u2013 National legislation not providing for the debt arising out of reserved portions to be deductible \u2013 Absence of any economic connection to the taxed assets \u2013 Restriction \u2013 Unjustified)"], "id": "d4a96242-619b-47b5-84d2-b6c3b0dc19fa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Since the national court refers, in the question submitted for a preliminary ruling, to both freedom of establishment and , enshrined in Articles 49 and 63 TFEU respectively, it should be noted, as a preliminary point, that the creation and the outright ownership by a natural or legal person established in a Member State of a permanent establishment, such as a branch, situated in another Member State, fall within the scope of Article 49 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 May 2008, Lidl Belgium, C\u2011414/06, EU:C:2008:278, paragraph 15, and of 15 September 2011, Dickinger and \u00d6mer, C\u2011347/09, EU:C:2011:582, paragraph 35)."], "id": "a96bb848-53d2-4abb-ba25-e41d5f694b1e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["37 In addition, where a national measure relates to the freedom of establishment and the at the same time, the Court will in principle examine the measure in dispute in relation to only one of those two freedoms if it appears, in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, that one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it (see, by analogy, judgment of 30 April 2020, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, C\u2011565/18, EU:C:2020:318, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "12a056a0-ce58-422b-ac62-0104168ef30e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["It is settled case-law that, where a national measure relates to the freedom to provide services and the at the same time, the Court will in principle examine the measure in dispute in relation to only one of those two freedoms if it appears, in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, that one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it (see, to that effect, judgments of 3 October 2006, Fidium Finanz, C\u2011452/04, EU:C:2006:631, paragraph 34; of 26 May 2016, NN (L) International, C\u201148/15, EU:C:2016:356, paragraph 39; and of 8 June 2017, Van der Weegen and Others, C\u2011580/15, EU:C:2017:429, paragraph 25)."], "id": "782ab941-d712-4ea7-b803-5f27ebfcbaca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The necessity for a non-discrimination test \u2013 and, therefore, for examining the comparability of the two situations in order to classify a measure as a \u2018restriction\u2019 in this sense \u2013 must be considered as having been definitely established since the judgment of 17 July 2014, Nordea Bank Danmark (C\u201148/13, EU:C:2014:2087). In that case, Advocate General Kokott proposed abandoning the non-discrimination test and instead urged the application to tax matters of the same test as those applied in other areas. The Court, however, did not follow her Opinion in that respect. In addition, where, as in the present case, the is at issue, the need for such a comparison flows from the wording of Article 65 TFEU."], "id": "f3743659-38ff-455a-89ff-a4ac873e6d91", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht K\u00f6ln (Finance Court, Cologne, Germany)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Articles 63 and 65 TFEU \u2013 \u2013 Distribution of dividends from \u2018free-float\u2019 shares \u2013 Reimbursement to a non-resident company of tax on capital income levied in the form of a withholding tax \u2013 Condition relating to the situation of shareholders with a direct or indirect equity holding in the company receiving dividends \u2013 Requirement to submit a certificate from the tax authorities of the State of residence \u2013 Proportionality)"], "id": "defb492b-ced1-46fc-b6da-5d79746b0323", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["83 Consequently, it must be held that, by reason of its very purpose, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings falls predominantly within the scope of the provided for in Article 63 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2019, N Luxembourg 1 and Others, C\u2011115/16, C\u2011118/16, C\u2011119/16 and C\u2011299/16, EU:C:2019:134, paragraph 158 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "f69b9566-638f-463a-930c-e4ce3396b571", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Should the Court take the view that the \u2018arbitrary discrimination\u2019 prohibited under Article 65(3) TFEU is to be equated with the normal discrimination prohibited under the other fundamental freedoms in tax law, the abovementioned particularities of the in relation to the tax law of the Member States must, however, be taken into account at the latest when weighing them up in the context of the examination of proportionality."], "id": "155c1cbd-0a52-4aac-aea0-9f313ea2a004", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["42 The Commission submits that, by penalising the failure to comply with, or late compliance with, the obligation to provide information with a proportional fine of 150% of the tax calculated on the amounts corresponding to the value of the rights or assets situated abroad, which is automatic and cannot be varied, the Spanish legislature introduced a disproportionate restriction on the ."], "id": "54bbc116-1fdb-42a2-918b-ad849643ac87", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["It must be stated that legislation of a Member State which taxes transactions involving derivative financial instruments, such as Article 1(492) of Law No 228/2012, falls within the scope of the where the tax applies to financial transactions implementing capital movements. Such legislation is also liable to affect the freedom to provide services, inasmuch as it may have an impact on financial services involving securities issued by companies established in that Member State and offered in another Member State."], "id": "2db65b0e-2b4e-4ab0-95c2-9894d5753b45", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Admittedly, here, other measures, particularly of a behavioural nature, such as a prohibition on the acquisition of real estate in Italy for speculative purposes, would probably have been more effective for this purpose. Such measures would, however, have had an even greater impact on the and the freedom of enterprise. A fortiori, the same problem would have arisen if structural measures, such as those currently provided for in the AIF Directive, had been adopted towards all funds wishing to acquire commercial real estate in Italy. Indeed, it should be remembered that the right to freedom of enterprise includes the right of every enterprise to freely dispose, within the limits of the liability it incurs for its own actions, of the economic, technical and financial resources at its disposal."], "id": "6f04b511-a492-4c46-9a2c-f45bae9c8fb5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["45 In that respect, it has previously been held that national legislation intended to apply only to those shareholdings which enable the holder to exert a definite influence on a company\u2019s decisions and to determine its activities comes within the scope of Article 49 TFEU on freedom of establishment. On the other hand, national provisions which apply to shareholdings acquired solely with the intention of making a financial investment without any intention to influence the management and control of the undertaking must be examined exclusively in the light of the (judgment of 13 March 2014, Bouanich, C\u2011375/12, EU:C:2014:138, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "cd11c99e-68a5-4f93-b2de-76b7701dba3f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The referring court raises five questions concerning the compatibility of a Portuguese provision of tax law with the fundamental freedoms. By all the questions referred, the referring court ultimately seeks to ascertain whether the taxation of a UCITS formed under foreign law and having its seat in another Member State is compatible with the and the freedom to provide services whereas, by contrast, UCITS formed under Portuguese law and having their seat in Portugal are exempt from corporation tax but are subject to a different tax \u2013 stamp duty. Therefore, in line with the view taken by the Commission, all the questions can be answered together."], "id": "b6a5533b-ba85-4978-8140-2913593e50a3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["18 Since UBS Real Estate was of the view that the appellate court had erred in holding that Article 35(10-ter) of Decree-Law No 223/2006 was consistent with Articles 12, 43 and 56 EC (now, after amendment, Articles 18, 49 and 63 TFEU), it brought an appeal on a point of law before the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), the referring court. In support of its appeals, it submits, in particular, that since it had been held on appeal that the two types of investment fund mentioned in the preceding paragraph corresponded to different situations which could be treated differently, whereas such differences were irrelevant in the light of the rationale of Article 35(10-ter) of Decree-Law No 223/2006, the provisions of the Treaties relating to the and freedom of establishment had been infringed."], "id": "7c1f1e40-76d0-4320-824f-74886a23dfc9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["However, in its case-law on the and inheritance tax, the Court has held that a citizen cannot be deprived of the right to rely on the provisions of the Treaty on the ground that he or she is profiting from tax advantages which are legally provided for by the rules in force in a Member State other than his or her State of residence, in the absence of a double taxation treaty."], "id": "21a2f8d3-29de-4082-b03a-e56a57abacc6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The Court\u2019s case-law contains examples of restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the that are analysed in relation to only one of those freedoms depending on the context of the disputes in the main proceedings. See, inter alia, judgments of 17 September 2009, Glaxo Wellcome (C\u2011182/08, EU:C:2009:559, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited), and of 6 March 2018, SEGRO and Horv\u00e1th (C\u201152/16 and C\u2011113/16, EU:C:2018:157, paragraph 55)."], "id": "ed9d37d3-18a2-46e7-bfb8-1470875a299a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["So far as concerns, in the second place, the existence of a restriction to the , it follows from consistent case-law of the Court that the concept of a \u2018restriction\u2019 in Article 63 TFEU covers, generally, any restriction on movements of capital both between Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 October 2013, Essent and Others, C\u2011105/12 to C\u2011107/12, EU:C:2013:677, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited) and between Member States and third countries (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 January 2018, Jahin, C\u201145/17, EU:C:2018:18, paragraphs 19 to 21, and of 26 February 2019, X (Controlled companies established in third countries), C\u2011135/17, EU:C:2019:136, paragraph 26)."], "id": "75e1c36a-924f-4907-88de-38b84764b194", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The Court held, first of all in paragraphs 62 to 64 of that judgment, that by providing for the extinguishment by operation of law of rights of usufruct held over agricultural land by nationals of Member States other than Hungary, the national legislation concerned, by its very purpose and on account of that fact alone, restricted the right of the persons concerned to the guaranteed in Article 63 TFEU, in so far as that legislation deprives them both of the possibility of continuing to enjoy their rights of usufruct, by preventing them, inter alia, from using and farming the land concerned or from letting it to tenant farmers and thereby making money from it, and of any possibility of alienating that right. Next, in paragraph 65 of that judgment, the Court added that that legislation was likely to discourage non-residents from making investments in Hungary in the future. Finally, in paragraphs 24, 94 and 107 of that judgment, the Court held that that restriction on the free movement of capital could not be justified on the basis of the evidence put forward by Hungary."], "id": "e6916df9-683a-4be9-bc13-78b871988dcb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["(Action for failure to fulfil obligations \u2014 \u2014 Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU \u2014 Respect for private life \u2014 Protection of personal data \u2014 Freedom of association \u2014 Transparency \u2014 Articles 7, 8 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Foreign donations to non-governmental organisations which carry on their activity in a Member State \u2014 National legislation imposing on non-governmental organisations in receipt of support from abroad legally binding obligations of registration, declaration and transparency which can be enforced)"], "id": "c12cb62c-8424-4712-b2b2-906c5f14e41d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["61. According to settled case-law of the Court, a restriction on the is permissible only if it is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, if it is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and if it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 February 2019, X (Controlled companies established in third countries), C\u2011135/17, EU:C:2019:136, paragraph 70, and of 30 January 2020, K\u00f6ln-Aktienfonds Deka, C\u2011156/17, EU:C:2020:51, paragraph 83 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "4494d9bd-9976-4d09-87dd-c6444df6b260", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["54 In those circumstances, the Commission has established that, by imposing on the taxpayer in respect of failure to comply with his or her obligations to declare relating to the taxpayer\u2019s assets or rights situated abroad a fine proportional to 150% of the amount of tax calculated on amounts corresponding to the value of those assets or those rights, which could be applied concurrently with flat-rate fines, the Spanish legislature caused disproportionate interference with the . The proportionality of the flat-rate fines"], "id": "763b522b-cee4-4a13-bead-b57bcc7b5056", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The parties differ on this point. The Commission, having lodged very general written observations in which it submitted that \u2018at first glance, granting non-resident heirs a pro-rated allowance constitutes \u2026 a restriction on the which, in principle, is prohibited by Article 63 TFEU\u2019, expressed support at the hearing for the submissions that the applicant made by reference to examples."], "id": "0b5091a8-587f-479d-a923-7d5f8e6a67a8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["96. I would point out at this stage of my analysis that the Court has abundant case-law tackling that issue, from the point of view of both the and the freedom of establishment. Specifically, in a line of cases involving facts similar to those in the main proceedings, the Court held that national legislation under which a non-resident company is taxed, by means of tax withheld at source by a resident company, on the interest which it is paid by the latter without it being possible to deduct expenses, such as interest expenditure, that are directly related to the lending at issue, whereas such a possibility of deduction is accorded to resident companies receiving interest from another resident company, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment. (41) The same conclusion was reached with regard to the free movement of capital. (42)"], "id": "3cc79eae-9936-4a39-bf26-f646847bf671", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2014 Admissibility \u2014 Article 63 TFEU \u2014 \u2014 Existence of a restriction \u2014 Burden of proof \u2014 Indirect discrimination linked to the origin of the capital \u2014 Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Right to freedom of association \u2014 National rules imposing on associations receiving financial support sent from other Member States or from third countries legally binding obligations of registration, declaration and publication which can be enforced \u2014 Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights \u2014 Right to respect for private life \u2014 Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights \u2014 Right to the protection of personal data \u2014 National rules imposing the disclosure of information on persons providing financial support to associations and of the amount of that support \u2014 Justification \u2014 Overriding reason in the public interest \u2014 Transparency of the financing of associations \u2014 Article 65 TFEU \u2014 Public policy \u2014 Public security \u2014 Fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism and organised crime \u2014 Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)"], "id": "f3523a7f-61e7-4fd0-aed1-c6d0486f1a90", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["The Court of Justice has therefore already addressed the French legal situation with regard to the taxation of dividends in a chain of companies in Accor and Commission v France and found infringements of the freedom of establishment and the in each case. The issue in the present case is the compatibility of the relevant French provisions with Directive 90/435 (\u2018the Parent-Subsidiary Directive\u2019). By its present request for a preliminary ruling, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat (Council of State, France) is now seeking interpretation of that directive, in particular as to whether Article 7(2) thereof allows the imposition by the French authorities of such an advance payment."], "id": "dc55ee89-1b2e-4b78-9390-199206165f1f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["If, on the other hand, it should transpire that the quarterly stamp duty in the present case leads to significantly more favourable tax treatment of UCITS resident in the national territory, this is liable to deter non-resident UCITS from making investments in the Member State concerned and, consequently, amounts to a restriction of the , prohibited, in principle, under Article 63 TFEU."], "id": "06db3df3-7e1d-421b-9252-cd41b73273de", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["It should be recalled that, according to the Court\u2019s settled case-law, a restriction on the is permissible if it is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, if it is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and if it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 February 2019, X (Controlled companies established in third countries), C\u2011135/17, EU:C:2019:136, paragraph 70, and of 30 January 2020, K\u00f6ln-Aktienfonds Deka, C\u2011156/17, EU:C:2020:51, paragraph 83 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "4b68c669-dc19-471e-90ac-c1960415a285", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the question raised does not relate solely to the applicant\u2019s situation, but more generally to the compatibility with Union law of an item of national legislation, as described by the national court. Since the questions referred by the national court enjoy a presumption of relevance, I consider it necessary to examine the tax regime at issue and not the particular situation of the applicant. Similarly, since the question raised does not concern the situation of persons residing in a third state \u2013 even if the principle of also prohibits restrictions between Member States and third States \u2013 it is not necessary, in my view, to examine this issue."], "id": "bba150d0-3afb-4b2a-ac0c-4bd82e5bc7c8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that a restriction on the such as that resulting from the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings may be justified by the objective of combating tax evasion and avoidance. As is apparent from paragraph 68 and 69 of this judgment, the restriction must also be appropriate for ensuring the attainment of that objective, and it must not go beyond what is necessary for attaining it."], "id": "60eb6ddc-386b-425c-9d5b-af3fa3644a44", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Articles 49 and 63 TFEU \u2013 Freedom of establishment \u2013 \u2013 Calculation of the taxable income of companies \u2013 Persons having a relationship of interdependence \u2013 Unusual advantage granted by a resident branch to a non-resident company \u2013 Correction of the taxable income of the branch of a non-resident company \u2013 No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a branch to a resident company \u2013 Principle of free competition \u2013 Restriction on freedom of establishment \u2013 Justification \u2013 Balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States \u2013 Proportionality)"], "id": "fcd09b47-2243-4ba5-9845-c9e6e437cae9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["It therefore seems necessary to examine the national legislation in the light of the freedoms of movement and, in particular, the freedom of establishment. Indeed, as already said, Gibraltar is a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, and that EU law is in principle applicable to that territory pursuant to Article 355(3) TFEU. It is also clear and established that the exclusions of the territory of Gibraltar from the application of Union acts in certain areas of law, laid down in the 1972 Act of Accession, do not relate to the freedom of establishment or to the , guaranteed by Articles 49 and 63 TFEU respectively. In other words, Articles 49 and 63 TFEU apply to the territory of Gibraltar by virtue of Article 355(3) TFEU."], "id": "62d7472f-1eff-455d-b062-2402f3bf7242", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["However, it seems doubtful to me whether this takes sufficient account of the abovementioned particularities of the . In his Opinion in the Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek case, Advocate General Szpunar took the view that the Court takes account of those particularities by virtue of the principle that the situations of residents and of non-residents are not, as a rule, comparable. That statement may be true for older case-law, such as the Schumacker judgment. It was also clarified in that case that, in relation to direct taxes, the situations of residents and of non-residents are not comparable."], "id": "c1792230-7936-4f10-9202-6418e46c59ad", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["However, as follows from the case-law of the Court in the Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek case, the question of whether there is a restriction on the is not to be based on a purely formal assessment of the exemption from a type of tax. Rather, the entire fiscal environment surrounding the taxation of a UCITS must be taken into account, that is to say, it is necessary to carry out a comprehensive (material) examination."], "id": "eb82ee6b-4bdc-4b33-9bff-13f6f2963765", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["158. First of all, I recall that Directive 2008/7 provides for complete harmonisation of the cases in which the Member States may levy indirect taxes on the raising of capital (77) in order to eliminate, as far as possible, factors which may distort conditions of competition or hinder the , and thus to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market. (78)"], "id": "ceb20a77-cade-4451-bd56-153d5f0722c5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["90 As regards the administrative burden on the tax authorities of the Member States of taxation that would result from taxpayers being allowed the opportunity to provide the information to demonstrate that those conditions have been met, it should be noted that administrative disadvantages are not alone sufficient to justify a barrier to the (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 October 2014, van Caster, C\u2011326/12, EU:C:2014:2269, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e10f5015-45f0-4888-bb21-31885ca37faa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["A distinction must therefore be drawn between the unequal treatment permitted under Article 65(1)(a) TFEU and the arbitrary discrimination prohibited by Article 65(3) thereof. In that regard, the case-law of the Court makes it clear that, in order for national tax rules to be regarded as compatible with the Treaty provisions on the , the difference in treatment must relate to situations which are not objectively comparable or which must be justifiable by an overriding reason in the public interest (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 June 2016, Feilen, C\u2011123/15, EU:C:2016:496, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited). In the latter case, the difference in treatment must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain it (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 November 2018, Huijbrechts, C\u2011679/17, EU:C:2018:940, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "74c73d65-9d0d-47a1-949f-67e7eaa308fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, in the contested decision, the Commission examined whether the implementation of the aid scheme at issue was compatible with the fundamental freedoms of movement and in particular with the and the freedom of establishment. In that regard, it noted that none of the eligibility criteria, and in particular those relating to the systemic or strategic importance of the beneficiaries for the Spanish economy and the fact that their principal places of business must be located in Spain, cannot be interpreted or applied as making the benefit of the aid subject to the transfer to Spain of their activities carried out in another Member State (paragraphs 46, 59 and 60 of the contested decision). The applicant does not dispute that assessment."], "id": "7ea10c8e-ecab-41b9-8ee1-2aa645a4a71f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["113 According to the Court\u2019s case-law, prevention of tax evasion is an overriding reason relating to the public interest, capable of justifying a restriction on the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, including the , as is the need to safeguard the balanced allocation between the Member States of the power to impose taxes (judgment of 8 March 2017, Euro Park Service, C\u201114/16, EU:C:2017:177, paragraph 65). The same applies to the need to ensure the effective collection of tax (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 April 2020, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, C\u2011565/18, EU:C:2020:318, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "64d669da-cd8a-4f3d-8149-0a088f04afea", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the restriction on the thus established can be justified under Article 65(1)(a) TFEU and, in the light of the grounds set out in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the present judgment, whether the difference in treatment concerns situations which are not objectively comparable or whether it meets an overriding reason in the public interest and, if so, whether it is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective that it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective."], "id": "4e92ccd4-9d75-4b65-8b3b-1a400fbcfdde", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["63. As regards the first justification, it must be recalled that the need to safeguard the balanced allocation between the Member States of the power to impose taxes is a ground capable of justifying a restriction on the , in particular, where the national measures in question are designed to prevent conduct capable of jeopardising the right of a Member State to exercise its powers of taxation in relation to activities carried out in its territory (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 February 2011, Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel and \u00d6sterreichische Salinen, C\u2011436/08 and C\u2011437/08, EU:C:2011:61, paragraph 121, and of 10 April 2014, Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company, C\u2011190/12, EU:C:2014:249, paragraph 98)."], "id": "7cfecca1-1ec7-4903-ac2c-82d06b963d92", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["Tesco brought an action before the F\u0151v\u00e1rosi K\u00f6zigazgat\u00e1si \u00e9s Munka\u00fcgyi B\u00edr\u00f3s\u00e1g (Administrative and Labour Court, Budapest, Hungary) contesting the decision of the Resources Directorate. Tesco submits that the obligation to pay the special tax imposed on it has no legal basis, arguing that the legislation relating to that tax adversely affects freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the . Further, that legislation is contrary to the principle of equal treatment, constitutes prohibited State aid and is contrary to Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)."], "id": "9e23f7a1-56ae-4b61-963b-f77baeed3e58", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["As the referring court has raised the issue of unequal treatment of residents and non-residents in relation to transfer duties, on the basis that differences of treatment might constitute restrictions on the , I should point out that, according to settled case-law of the Court, inheritances, which consist in the transfer to one or more persons of assets left by a deceased person, constitute movements of capital within the meaning of Article 63 TFEU, except in cases where their constituent elements are confined within a single Member State."], "id": "78bb1af5-1728-4425-b3ae-9a0d5bcf77b5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["77. I believe that a national provision, such as the fifth sentence of Paragraph 32(5) of the KStG, under which reimbursement of withheld tax on income from capital to a non-resident company is granted only following submission of a certificate from the foreign tax authorities stating that the tax cannot be offset, deducted or carried forward and that no set-off, deduction or carry-forward has actually taken place either, and that in respect of both that company and all direct or indirect shareholders, without affording any opportunity for the non-resident company to adduce alternative proofs, is likely to constitute a disguised restriction on the prohibited by Article 65(3) TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 June 2011, Meilicke and Others, C\u2011262/09, EU:C:2011:438, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "5b26312f-6903-4f74-a487-edcb88d6dc9f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["In so far as Paragraph 33c(1) and (2) provides that these conditions apply only to foreign companies, that provision establishes a difference in treatment based on nationality. Moreover, since corporations governed by Finnish law and those governed by foreign law might both be subject to double taxation, the situations thus differentiated must be considered, in the light of the aim of that measure, as comparable. In those circumstances, the conclusion that Paragraph 33c(1) and (2) establishes direct discrimination on grounds of nationality and, consequently, a restriction on the , is inevitable."], "id": "1409650e-9a5e-48d2-87e6-50ab420aa813", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free movement of capital", "masked_sentences": ["It is therefore necessary to consider whether, as the Commission submits but the German Government does not accept, the national legislation at issue, under which the amount of the allowance is no longer fixed, as in the previous cases, but is proportional to the tax base, constitutes a restriction on the contrary to Article 63(1) TFEU."], "id": "e73c3559-d9d9-432a-80d9-8dd801e2c23b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Article 2(2) \u2013 Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief \u2013 Internal rules of undertakings prohibiting workers from wearing visible, conspicuous or large-scale political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace \u2013 Direct discrimination \u2013 None \u2013 Indirect discrimination \u2013 Female worker prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf \u2013 Customers\u2019 wishes that the undertaking pursue a policy of neutrality \u2013 Entitlement to wear small, visible signs \u2013 Article 8(1) \u2013 National provisions more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment \u2013 Freedom of religion under Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 National constitutional provisions protecting the freedom of religion)"], "id": "039d6aeb-f30a-456e-b14e-11b4bdfeb294", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Against that background, I would note that, if a difference in treatment is not to constitute indirect discrimination it must be justified by objective factors which are also unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. As stated above, the Court finds that to be particularly the case where the means chosen reflect a legitimate objective of the Member State whose legislation is at issue, are appropriate to achieve that aim and are necessary in order to do so. Accordingly, first, it is for the Member State to prove that the legislation at issue reflects a legitimate objective and that the objective is unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex and, second, it is for the referring court to determine whether and to what extent the legislative provision concerned is justified by such an objective factor, while the Court has jurisdiction to provide guidance, based on the documents in the file of the case in the main proceedings and on the written and oral observations which have been submitted to it, in order to enable the national court to give judgment."], "id": "02b920da-cf70-413f-87e1-2dd948a569b7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social Policy", "masked_sentences": ["In Griesmar, the Court interpreted Article 6(3) of the Agreement on in a case concerning a service credit for children, which was awarded to female civil servants under an occupational retirement scheme. The Court found that that measure did not come within the positive action measures envisaged by Article 6(3) of the Agreement on Social Policy. The measure did not appear \u2018to be of a nature such as to offset the disadvantages to which the careers of female civil servants are exposed by helping those women in their professional life\u2019. The Court noted that, \u2018on the contrary, that measure is limited to granting female civil servants who are mothers a service credit at the date of their retirement, without providing a remedy for the problems which they may encounter in the course of their professional career\u2019. This was confirmed in Leone, as well as in several Treaty infringement judgments concerning certain advantages conferred on female civil servants regarding retirement age and the number of years of service required for retirement."], "id": "eb3731c8-70fc-4ee7-9227-38c9577b3e0e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["See, in particular, communications COM(93) 600 final of 14 December 1993 concerning the application of the Agreement on presented by the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament; COM(1998) 322 final of 20 May 1998, \u2018Adapting and promoting the social dialogue at community level\u2019; and COM(2002) 341 final of 26 June 2002, \u2018The European social dialogue, a force for innovation and change\u2019."], "id": "201e8696-f9f5-4953-aa51-739f2ee65916", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["That provision, which seeks to reconcile the Member States\u2019 interests in using certain undertakings as an instrument of economic or with the European Union\u2019s interest in ensuring compliance with the rules on competition and the preservation of the unity of the internal market (judgments of 20 April 2010, Federutility and Others, C\u2011265/08, EU:C:2010:205, paragraph 28, and of 8 March 2017, Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission, C\u2011660/15 P, EU:C:2017:178, paragraph 31), must be interpreted taking account of the clarifications in Protocol (No 26) on Services of General Interest (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 307) and, having regard to the field at issue in the present case, in Protocol (No 29) on the System of Public Broadcasting in the Member States (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 311) (judgment of 8 March 2017, Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission, C\u2011660/15 P, EU:C:2017:178, paragraph 36)."], "id": "766af736-4554-4046-b348-f3879c085025", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In sum, combating a housing shortage and seeking to ensure the availability of sufficient and affordable (long-term) housing (in particular in large cities), as well as the protection of the urban environment, are valid justifications for the establishment of authorisation schemes broadly based on . Such reasons can equally be invoked to justify the criteria of an authorisation scheme."], "id": "83cccc5e-e65e-4371-a161-1325592e0d02", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Finally, it should be pointed out that, in paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the interpretation advanced by the applicants would mean that, when management and labour do not make a joint request seeking the implementation of an agreement at EU level, the social partners and the Member States are obliged to implement that agreement at their level in accordance with their own procedures and practices, which would be contrary to the intention of the 11 Member States that were signatories to the Agreement on concluded between the Member States of the European Community with the exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 91). Whilst EPSU asserts, in the appeal, that the General Court misinterpreted the factual context as to what EUPAE agreed, that argument is not substantiated in any way and it also does not call into question the General Court\u2019s finding, in paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, in relation to Declaration No 2 annexed to that agreement."], "id": "7580acb0-58f8-4369-bad3-54bcf61e2914", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court, Austria)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Article 157 TFEU \u2013 Protocol (No 33) concerning Article 157 TFEU \u2013 Equal pay for male and female workers \u2013 Limitation of the temporal effects \u2013 Directive 2006/54/EC \u2013 Equal opportunity and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation \u2013 Articles 5 and 12 \u2013 Prohibition of any indirect discrimination on grounds of sex \u2013 Occupational social security schemes \u2013 Retirement pensions of national civil servants \u2013 Proportion of men in the category receiving the highest pensions \u2013 Legislation providing for an annual adjustment of retirement pensions \u2013 Increase on a reducing scale that is precluded entirely above a certain pension amount \u2013 Justifications)"], "id": "30ca8ccb-f790-4f1f-9c1b-913b028f27cf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["It is therefore necessary to determine whether those reasons are objective and unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. According to the Court, that is particularly the case where the means chosen reflect a legitimate objective of the legislation at issue, are appropriate to achieve that aim and are necessary in order to do so. Moreover, such factors can be considered appropriate to achieve the stated aim only if they genuinely reflect a concern to attain that aim and are pursued in a consistent and systematic manner."], "id": "2df9259d-1dd1-4f62-9f48-525b2783f4ab", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["First, in the context of another measure of EU , namely Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees\u2019 rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, the Court has interpreted narrowly the circumstances in which public undertakings are precluded from the scope of that directive for non-engagement in \u2018economic activities\u2019, and held that such circumstances are confined to \u2018reorganisation of structures of the public administration or the transfer of administrative functions between public administrative authorities\u2019. The fact that the EIGE is a public authority does not in itself prevent the EIGE from falling within the parameters of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/104 as a \u2018user undertaking\u2019. As can be seen from the discussion below in points 67 and 68, on the EIGE\u2019s tasks and areas of activity (see, respectively, Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1922/2006), along with its objectives (Article 2), the EIGE cannot be considered to be engaging in activities which fall within the exercise of public powers."], "id": "79f72e34-765f-4c46-8761-6b74dba901f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that it pursues an objective of guaranteeing air traffic safety, as is explicitly apparent from the judgment in Prigge and Others, cannot be justified on the basis of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78. Likewise, since the aim of protecting national security is not a aim, it cannot be a legitimate aim within the meaning of that article."], "id": "96235ba4-a6a4-4ed5-8c0c-8bd95386f92e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2013 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2013 Clause 4 \u2013 Principle of non-discrimination \u2013 Objective reasons justifying different treatment of fixed-term workers \u2013 Directive 98/59/EC \u2013 Collective redundancy \u2013 National legislation on the protection to be afforded to a worker dismissed as part of an unlawful collective redundancy \u2013 Application of a less advantageous protection system to fixed-term contracts concluded before its entry into force and converted into contracts of an indefinite duration after that date)"], "id": "c39ff831-8781-4337-8ae9-f3c446716e23", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In its judgment of 17 June 1998, UEAPME v Council, the Court of First Instance held the action to be inadmissible, finding that the Commission and the Council had properly taken the view that the collective representativeness of the signatories to the framework agreement was sufficient in relation to that agreement\u2019s content for its implementation at Community level by means of a Council measure, and that the applicant had not succeeded in showing that it was entitled to require the Council to prevent that implementation. Nothing in the case which gave rise to that judgment suggests that the Commission\u2019s power to propose the implementation of an agreement concluded between the social partners to the Council is limited solely to reviewing the legality of the agreement and the representativeness of management and labour. On the contrary, an examination of the Court of First Instance\u2019s analysis of the provisions that are now Articles 154 and 155 TFEU shows that the onus is on the Commission, when it receives a joint request from management and labour to implement at EU level an agreement which they have concluded, to conduct an overall assessment of the democratic representativeness of that agreement, since the Commission must act in conformity with the principles governing its action in the field of . It follows from that judgment that, contrary to what EPSU claims, the legality of the agreement and the representativeness of the social partners are only part of the picture to be considered by the Commission when determining whether it is appropriate to propose to the Council that an agreement concluded between the social partners be implemented at EU level. However, it cannot be inferred from the need for those two reviews that the Commission is deprived of the possibility of examining other issues relating to the appropriateness of implementing that agreement. Since the Agreement on social policy, which was interpreted in the case giving rise to that judgment, is reproduced almost verbatim by the current Articles 154 and 155 TFEU, the Court of First Instance\u2019s systematic interpretation in that judgment is still relevant and supports the systematic interpretation proposed in this Opinion."], "id": "7a2f4a8b-554e-45fd-a86f-3a1fff15b467", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["I consider that the Commission has made out its first complaint, principally because of Poland\u2019s overly prescriptive interpretation of the requirements, set in the Court\u2019s case-law, for a pension scheme to be categorised as one meeting considerations of , and therefore governed by Directive 79/7 as a measure appertaining to social security, rather than as one concerning \u2018pay\u2019 under Article 157 TFEU, and governed by the prohibitions in this article and directives governing equal pay, here Directive 2006/54."], "id": "bd2afd89-8824-4256-a4ee-64e9c8657da8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In sum, excluding social security from the scope of Article 157(4) TFEU would mean that Directive 79/7 would be the only specific instrument of secondary law in the field of implementing the EU principle of equality between women and men that is excluded from the substantive approach to equality heralded by Article 157(4) TFEU as the general \u2018positive action\u2019 provision on grounds of sex."], "id": "e0f7c38a-0548-4181-b97d-44cf244e972a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Articles 1, 2 and 3 \u2013 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2013 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2013 Clause 4 \u2013 Principle of non-discrimination \u2013 Measure taken by a university pursuant to national law \u2013 Retention of tenured lecturer status beyond the statutory retirement age \u2013 Possibility restricted to lecturers with doctoral supervisor status \u2013 Lecturers who do not have this status \u2013 Fixed-term employment contracts \u2013 Lower remuneration than for tenured lecturers)"], "id": "12000bd9-642b-4f0e-8f75-ccd5cfaf0dad", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Appeal \u2013 Law governing the institutions \u2013 \u2013 Articles 154 and 155 TFEU \u2013 Social dialogue between management and labour at EU level \u2013 Informing and consulting civil servants and employees of central government administrations of the Member States \u2013 Agreement concluded between the social partners \u2013 Joint request of the signatories to that agreement seeking its implementation at EU level \u2013 Refusal of the European Commission to submit a proposal for a decision to the Council of the European Union \u2013 Standard of judicial review \u2013 Obligation to state reasons for the decision refusing to submit the proposal)"], "id": "c55886ff-1bf7-4738-b855-eb9f0171ac14", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, the INSS and the Spanish Government argue that a proportional reduction in the retirement pension in cases of part-time work constitutes the expression of a general objective pursued by the national legislature, since that correction is essential within a social security system that relies on contributions. Such a reduction must be made in the light of the principle of contribution and the principle of equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers and is objectively justified by the fact that, in cases of part-time work, the pension is the counterpart of less work carried out and a smaller contribution to the system."], "id": "d1ddbf8c-5d59-4cdf-b817-1156f0176a6f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["The General Court has already held that the Commission must act in conformity with the principles governing its actions in the field of . As both the applicants and the Commission have correctly stated, it is for the Commission to verify inter alia whether the signatories to the agreement in question are representative (see, by analogy, the judgment of 17 June 1998, UEAPME v Council, T\u2011135/96, EU:T:1998:128, paragraphs 85 and 88). Similarly, the parties rightly agree that the Commission can and must verify the legality of the clauses of an agreement concluded by management and labour before proposing its implementation by a decision of the Council."], "id": "ffb691eb-6397-4dcf-8860-1ef9c960af6c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["The Hungarian Government submits that Articles 53(1) TFEU and 62 TFEU, which provide for the approximation of laws in relation to the freedom to provide services, are not an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Directive 2018/957. Taking into account its purpose and its content, that directive applies only, or principally, to the protection of workers, meaning that the EU legislature ought, for the purpose of adopting the directive, have taken Article 153 TFEU as the legal basis or, at least, as the principal legal basis in relation to ."], "id": "d073f633-a6f1-42ac-bc26-40c3ecb063ee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["It is in respect of this phase of determining whether there is indirect discrimination, that is to say, examination of the objective grounds of justification, that academic commentators have expressed reservations about the review exercised by the Court. According to those observers, that review appears to be permissive wherever it is argued that the benefit concerned is justified by legitimate objectives. See, among others, Pennings, F., European Social Security Law, Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford and Portland, 2010, pp. 322-327."], "id": "2eeea72c-3a0e-4db9-a59c-f9363b4a5a42", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["The legislation at issue in the present case would thus be justified in particular if the referring court were to find that it reflects a legitimate objective, is appropriate to achieve that objective and is necessary in order to do so, it being understood that it can be considered appropriate to achieve the stated aim only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain that aim and is pursued in a consistent and systematic manner (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 September 2020, YS (Occupational pensions for managerial staff), C\u2011223/19, EU:C:2020:753, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "2f249351-6d63-47b2-9c49-0774c7ff2e67", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Article 6(1) \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Article 21 \u2013 Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of age \u2013 National legislation setting 50 years of age as the age limit for access to the profession of notary \u2013 Justification)"], "id": "c26f3726-c85d-4504-87e3-76c3a3b31136", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, in so far as both the within a parent company and the group policy established by that company may have an impact on the social policy and strategy of the subsidiaries in that group, a strike set in motion by the staff of an operating air carrier in solidarity with the strike observed by the staff of the parent company of which that carrier is a subsidiary cannot be regarded as an event which is not inherent in the normal exercise of the latter\u2019s activity. As the European Commission remarked in its written observations, it is neither out of the ordinary nor unforeseeable that labour disputes may extend to different parts of a group of undertakings during collective bargaining."], "id": "03124f5c-f518-4605-8085-8da7dc502a6e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["However, as the Advocate General stated in point 44 of her Opinion, it is apparent from recital 1 of that directive that the directive is designed to ensure full compliance with Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, paragraph 1 of which establishes in general terms the right of every worker to working conditions that respect his or her health, safety and dignity. The Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) indicate, in that regard, that the expression \u2018working conditions\u2019 is to be understood in accordance with Article 156 TFEU. However, that provision merely refers, without any further definition, to \u2018working conditions\u2019 as being one of the areas of the European Union\u2019s in which the Commission may intervene to encourage cooperation between Member States and facilitate the coordination of their action. In the light of the objective of Directive 2008/104 to protect the rights of temporary agency workers, that lack of precision supports a broad interpretation of the concept of \u2018working conditions\u2019."], "id": "33ee366e-9616-4b59-a167-dffae202dbb2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Equal treatment of men and women in matters of pay and social security \u2014 Directive 2006/54/EC \u2014 Occupational pension provision \u2014 Special pensions \u2014 Occupational pensions in the form of a direct defined benefit pension from the employer \u2014 Withholding of a pension security contribution \u2014 Lack of increase in special pensions \u2014 Indirect discrimination against men \u2014 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2014 Age discrimination \u2014 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Article 20 \u2014 Article 21 \u2014 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex, property and age)"], "id": "c2e25e0d-ea9e-4331-bca1-54b370365ce2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["It is also apparent that that national legislation does not give rise to measures which would go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued. Such legislation precludes access to a pension only to those persons who voluntarily intend to take early retirement, but for whom the pension amount would entail a cost to the national social security scheme in so far as it would give rise to a payment, to them, of a pension supplement. Furthermore, it is apparent from the file submitted to the Court that that exclusion can apply only in a situation where the start of the worker\u2019s early retirement follows a deliberate decision of that worker, and not for a reason that is not attributable to that worker, for example in the event of corporate restructuring. Moreover, as the Commission has pointed out in its written observations, the national legislature could not have made a different legislative choice, consisting of a derogation from the guarantee to receive a minimum pension in the event of voluntary early retirement, without undermining the objective pursued by that guarantee, as mentioned in paragraph 35 above."], "id": "96eaaf0f-e86f-4da5-8bc9-f075d8b09e72", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["That would be the case where the measures chosen reflect a legitimate objective of the Member State whose legislation is at issue, they are appropriate to achieve the objective pursued by that Member State and they are necessary for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 November 2012, Elbal Moreno, C\u2011385/11, EU:C:2012:746, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "8e7fa538-1878-4aef-b3be-64c9216b954f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Second, the interpretation advanced by the applicants would mean that, when management and labour do not make a joint request seeking the implementation of an agreement at EU level, the social partners and the Member States would be obliged to implement that agreement at their level in accordance with their own procedures and practices. Such a consequence, which is moreover not referred to by the applicants, would be contrary to the intention of the 11 Member States that were signatories to the Agreement on . It follows from Declaration No 2, annexed to that agreement, that by concluding the agreement the Member States concerned did not intend to commit themselves to apply directly the agreements concluded at EU level between management and labour or to lay down the rules for the implementation of those agreements."], "id": "c7da5296-c00a-4786-832d-8d94b6684650", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the \u00d8stre Landsret (High Court of Eastern Denmark)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age \u2013 Article 3(1)(a) and (d) \u2013 Scope \u2013 Post of elected sector convenor of an organisation of workers \u2013 Statutes of that organisation under which only members under the age of 60 or 61 on the date of the election are eligible to stand as sector convenor)"], "id": "d71a2597-fd67-459c-91c9-5de152b258b8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, while budgetary considerations may underlie a Member State\u2019s choice of and influence the nature or scope of the employment protection measures which it wishes to adopt, they cannot in themselves constitute an aim pursued by that policy (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 October 2020, Universitatea Lucian Blaga Sibiu and Others, C\u2011644/19, EU:C:2020:810, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1a30f004-351b-4d6a-b538-80e6ca8f4b97", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, the General Court was correct in holding that the interpretation put forward by the applicants would result in management and labour having the power to compel the Commission to act in the field of whereas Article 225 TFEU merely grants the Parliament the right to request the Commission to submit to the Council \u2018any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties\u2019 and, if the Commission does not submit a proposal, the right to be informed by it of the reasons. Similarly, under Article 241 TFEU, the Council may merely request the Commission to undertake any studies the Council considers desirable for the attainment of the common objectives and to submit to it any appropriate proposals, and it has the right, if the Commission does not submit a proposal, to be informed by it of the reasons. This conclusion cannot be called into question by EPSU\u2019s line of argument according to which the social partners negotiate, draft and agree the text of the agreement concerned autonomously and the Parliament always participates in such a process since the Commission is required to inform it."], "id": "1ffb957a-91d9-49c6-b4b7-8aff7a8d4635", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Appeal \u2013 Law governing the institutions \u2013 \u2013 Articles 154 and 155 TFEU \u2013 Social dialogue between the social partners at EU level \u2013 Information and consultation of the social partners \u2013 Agreement concluded by the social partners \u2013 Information and consultation of civil servants and employees of central government administrations of Member States \u2013 Refusal by the Commission to submit a proposal for a decision to implement the agreement to the Council \u2013 Classification of measures arising from the implementation procedure \u2013 Commission\u2019s discretion \u2013 Extent of judicial review \u2013 Obligation to state reasons for the refusal)"], "id": "a505c420-8435-4a93-9856-85cecb610e3a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it is apparent from the documents available to the Court and from the replies to the Court\u2019s questions that the Italian Government considers that the less favourable treatment of a worker in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings is justified by the objective pursued by Legislative Decree No 23/2015, which is to encourage employers to employ workers on a permanent basis. Treating the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration like a new recruitment is, it is argued, justified in the light of the fact that the worker concerned obtains, in exchange, a form of stability of employment."], "id": "07942453-61e7-4af6-a0b7-a259eee1b9a5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age \u2013 Public-sector employees placed on reserve until the termination of their contract of employment \u2013 Employment relationship ending when workers satisfy the conditions to receive a full pension \u2013 Article 6(1) \u2013 Reduction of public-sector wage costs \u2013 Legitimate employment policy objective \u2013 Situation of economic and financial crisis)"], "id": "5374a972-3318-4266-a0e0-eb61d747f197", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be pointed out that the findings set out by the General Court in paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal flow specifically from the analysis carried out by it, in paragraphs 71 to 73 of that judgment, as to the respective roles of the institutions and the social partners in the separate stages \u2013 provided for in Articles 154 and 155 TFEU \u2013 of consultation, negotiation and implementation at EU level of agreements concluded in the field of ."], "id": "fff6daec-564b-4fad-8c01-2874e27154d7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n\u00ba 26 de Barcelona (Social Court No 26, Barcelona, Spain)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security \u2013 Directive 79/7/EEC \u2013 Article 4(1) \u2013 Calculation of benefits \u2013 Refusal to award two permanent incapacity allowances under the same social security scheme \u2013 The award of two or more incapacity benefits obtained under different social security schemes \u2013 Relevant comparators)"], "id": "f74bb8ff-e694-45d8-aa25-1b9bd02fa944", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2014 Equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2014 Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 \u2014 Prohibition of any discrimination based on a disability \u2014 Worker particularly susceptible to occupational risks within the meaning of national law \u2014 Existence of a \u2018disability\u2019 \u2014 Dismissal for objective reasons based on criteria of productivity, multi-skilling in the undertaking\u2019s posts and absenteeism \u2014 Particular disadvantage for disabled persons \u2014 Indirect discrimination \u2014 Reasonable accommodation \u2014 Individual who is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of the post concerned)"], "id": "3d9dd42b-c65b-4f9c-9108-1f2a5e0b8835", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["As the Commission correctly observes, the imperative formulation referred to in paragraph 58 above arose during the drafting of the Agreement on , namely at the time when, in accordance with the proposal formulated by management and labour in the Agreement of 31 October 1991, the two procedures for the implementation of the agreements concluded by management and labour, referred to in paragraph 50 above, were brought within that same sentence. On that occasion the verb in the sentence ceased to relate to the submission by the Commission of proposals for the implementation of those agreements at EU level and thereafter related to the implementation of those agreements in accordance with one or other of the two procedures referred to in paragraph 50 above. In those circumstances, the imperative formulation referred to above may have the function of expressing the exclusivity of those two procedures."], "id": "af5ed91c-328a-4c8c-9e9a-04cae78628dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2013 Framework agreement on fixed-term employment concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2013 Clause 5 \u2013 Measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships \u2013 Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector \u2013 Successive contracts or extended initial contract \u2013 Equivalent legal measure \u2013 Absolute constitutional prohibition on conversion of fixed-term employment contracts to contracts of indefinite duration \u2013 Obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law)"], "id": "f188564f-35b0-4688-8d33-d10f39b10423", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2003/88/EC \u2013 Organisation of working time \u2013 Concept of \u2018working time\u2019 \u2013 A worker\u2019s break, during which he or she must be available to his or her employer to be called out within two minutes \u2013 Obligation to uphold the legal rulings of a higher court that do not comply with EU law \u2013 Primacy of EU law)"], "id": "433793ac-25cf-46c7-849c-9f37e5bc3f93", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["However, in my view, that is not the case here. The CEPA is above all an instrument designed to strengthen economic and trade cooperation between the parties, with a view to promoting sustainable development, which incorporates environmental and social constraints, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as human health into the economy. In addition to the provisions concerning trade in Title VI, a wide range of areas of cooperation is covered by the CEPA, relating to highly diverse socio-economic sectors, from energy (Chapter 2 of Title V) to the environment and climate action (Chapters 3 and 4 of Title V), industrial policy (Chapter 5 of Title V), cooperation in financial services (Chapter 7 of Title V), tourism (Chapter 9 of Title V), agriculture and fisheries (Chapters 10 and 11 of Title V), research (Chapter 14 of Title V), (Chapter 15 of Title V), education and culture (Chapters 17 and 18 of Title V), sport (Chapter 20 of Title V) and civil protection (Chapter 23 of Title V)."], "id": "977fd6f8-1125-4e39-bbbc-72e3df651697", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 1999/70/CE \u2013 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2013 Clause 4(1) \u2013 Principle of non-discrimination \u2013 Public sector education \u2013 National provision granting additional remuneration only to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials \u2013 Exclusion of teachers employed under a fixed-term contract governed by public law \u2013 Concept of \u2018objective grounds\u2019 \u2013 Characteristics inherent in the status of established public officials)"], "id": "84ca2caf-1c05-4b14-9bb1-60bc6f4b8c3b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that considerations of , of State organisation, of ethics, or even the budgetary concerns which influenced or may have influenced the establishment by the national legislature of a scheme cannot prevail if the pension concerns only a particular category of workers, if it is directly related to the period of service completed and if its amount is calculated by reference to the last salary (judgments of 28 September 1994, Beune, C\u20117/93, EU:C:1994:350, paragraph 45, and of 22 November 2012, Elbal Moreno, C\u2011385/11, EU:C:2012:746, paragraph 23)."], "id": "17e3d87e-11a8-4ef8-af24-92cb1e44acde", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["That article nonetheless requires that \u2018full regard\u2019 be had, in particular, to Article 86 EC Treaty (now Article 106 TFEU). In addition to Article 14 TFEU, Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest, and Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter\u2019), that provision concerns the compliance of \u2018services of general economic interest\u2019 with the Treaty. In other words, Article 106(2) TFEU is aimed at reconciling the Member States\u2019 interest in using certain undertakings as an instrument of economic or with the European Union\u2019s interest in ensuring compliance with the rules on competition and preserving the unity of the internal market."], "id": "146a214c-1e0a-4359-be65-12432bc10616", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["As regards paragraph 82 of the judgment under appeal, in so far as the applicants submitted that management and labour have the power to compel the Commission to submit to the Council a proposal for a decision implementing their agreements at EU level, the General Court was correct in pointing out that, if such an interpretation were adopted, management and labour would exert a greater influence over the content of legal acts adopted in relation to on the basis of Articles 154 and 155 TFEU than that which may be exerted by the Parliament, which, pursuant to Article 155(2) TFEU, must merely be informed before legal acts are adopted."], "id": "495ab5a2-bc49-4f50-9d4c-5c997c5a3ca9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2010/18/EU \u2014 Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave \u2014 National legislation making the granting of parental leave conditional on a reduction in working time, with a proportional reduction in pay \u2014 Shift work with variable hours \u2014 Request of the worker to perform his work at a fixed schedule to care for his minor children \u2014 Directive 2006/54/EC \u2014 Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation \u2014 Indirect discrimination \u2014 Partial inadmissibility)"], "id": "484720af-737f-4023-b943-b5ddbaafd679", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["75. Fifth, the referring court states that, in the case of one of the appellants in the main proceedings, his retirement pension, following the entry into force of the legislation at issue, has seen a 25% reduction as compared with the correct adjustment for inflation since he is retired. In their written observations, the appellants in the main proceedings argue that, as civil servants whose relationship with their employer is an employment relationship governed by public law, the crucial factor is that they worked in return for pay which, today, has a posteriori been adjusted downwards. However, in my view, that situation is covered by domestic law and by the which the Member State intends to pursue. EU law does not require that the amount of a retirement pension keeps pace with the rate of inflation and remains stable in real terms. With regard to Article 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54, in particular, the interpretation of which is requested, those provisions concern merely the application of the principle of equal treatment for men and women, as part of which, as has been stated, closing the gap between the levels of retirement pensions funded by the State is a legitimate social-policy objective and in connection with which the Member States have a broad margin of discretion."], "id": "2c2c1fc3-c244-4e1d-b140-702a44b1d3b9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Second, EPSU contends that, in paragraphs 69 and 89 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court focused on the nature of the stage of implementation of the agreement at issue on the basis of Article 155(2) TFEU and on the classification of the act adopted under that provision, rather than on the \u2018substantive consequences\u2019 of that act. Furthermore, it contends that the conclusion drawn by the General Court in paragraph 96 of the judgment under appeal is inconsistent (i) with measures adopted under Article 155(2) TFEU maintaining their legislative nature and (ii) with the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to directives adopted in the field of ."], "id": "78136d50-c6c5-42b7-ba09-3ac905b190b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age \u2013 Workers placed under a labour reserve system until termination of their contract of employment \u2013 Wage reduction and reduction or loss of severance pay \u2013 System applicable to public-sector workers close to full-time retirement \u2013 Reduction of public-sector wage costs \u2013 Article 6(1) \u2013 Legitimate social policy objective \u2013 Economic crisis)"], "id": "4b884f94-a3b7-401c-bcaf-ff48e0897119", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["It should be noted that the first round of consultation provided for in Article 154(2) TFEU is of a general nature and does not prejudge the Commission\u2019s subsequent decision whether or not to submit a specific proposal in the field. Thus, that consultation of management and labour does not affect the Commission\u2019s discretion when it comes to submitting proposals to the Council for the adoption of legal acts. Under Article 154(3) TFEU, the Commission is required to consult management and labour a second time only if it \u2018considers Union action advisable\u2019."], "id": "df81d157-9902-45f7-8488-efa62e64d360", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 96/34/EC \u2014 Framework agreement on parental leave \u2014 Clause 2.6 \u2014 Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave \u2014 Dismissal \u2014 Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance \u2014 Method of calculation \u2014 Article 157 TFEU \u2014 Equal pay for male and female workers \u2014 Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers \u2014 Indirect discrimination \u2014 Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination \u2014 None)"], "id": "a190da6a-5c27-4147-816e-54463b78d74d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(References for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2001/23/EC \u2014 Safeguarding of employees rights in the event of transfer of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses \u2014 Articles 3 and 5 \u2014 Directive 2008/94/EC \u2014 Safeguarding the rights of employees in the event of insolvency of employers \u2014 Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 \u2014 Supplementary pension benefits \u2014 Whether transferees responsible for supplementary pension benefits of employees of an undertaking transferred from an insolvent transferor)"], "id": "139d1664-8506-4a0f-907c-f49a6fc60be7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Protection of the health and safety of workers \u2014 Organisation of working time \u2014 Directive 2003/88/EC \u2014 Daily rest \u2014 Weekly rest \u2014 Maximum weekly working time \u2014 Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2014 Directive 89/391/EEC \u2014 Health and safety of workers in the workplace \u2014 Obligation for undertakings to set up a system to measure daily working time)"], "id": "6719eb58-9f03-434c-9a39-cca86f34c7e5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Articles 154 and 155 TFEU thus govern different aspects of the same decision-making process designed to develop measures, as evidenced by the reference to the latter provision in the former. Although, from a technical perspective, those two provisions constitute two separate legal bases, I take the view that they should be examined together in so far as they may lead to the adoption of the same measure. It follows from the combination of those provisions that, despite the specific features mentioned above, they do not have the effect of depriving the Commission of its \u2018traditional\u2019 role in social policy, which is reflected, in particular, by the exercise of its power of initiative by means of proposals submitted to promote the general interest of the European Union, within the meaning of Article 17(1) TEU."], "id": "bb0debd4-b745-4a65-8ea5-bff7f2eb89de", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["111 Regarding, in the fourth place, the argument relating to the financial interests of the State, it must be borne in mind that the Court has previously held that, whilst budget considerations may underlie a Member State\u2019s choice of and influence the nature or scope of the measures which it wishes to adopt, they do not in themselves constitute an aim pursued by that policy and, therefore, cannot justify the lack of any measure preventing the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts as referred to in Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement (judgment of 25 October 2018, Sciotto, C\u2011331/17, EU:C:2018:859, paragraph 55)."], "id": "11a3d018-9f9a-44cc-9039-fdc9041cb833", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In the specific field of , one of the aims of Title X of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, as the Advocate General has noted in point 73 of his Opinion, is to promote the role of the social partners and to facilitate dialogue between them, while respecting their autonomy, and Article 154(1) TFEU provides that the Commission is to have inter alia the task of promoting the consultation of management and labour at EU level. Furthermore, in the specific context of implementation of agreements concluded between management and labour at EU level, Article 155(2) TFEU has conferred on management and labour a right comparable to that possessed more generally, under Articles 225 and 241 TFEU respectively, by the Parliament and the Council to request the Commission to submit appropriate proposals for the purpose of implementing the Treaties."], "id": "cc56b373-31c2-40e8-84e2-716bdc6eb456", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which, in the event of voluntary early retirement of a worker enrolled in the general social security scheme, makes that worker\u2019s right to an early retirement pension subject to the condition that the amount of that pension is at least as much as the minimum pension amount to which that worker would be entitled at the age of 65, even if that law puts female workers at a particular disadvantage, compared with male workers, which is for the referring court to determine, provided, however, that that consequence is justified by legitimate objectives which are unrelated to any discrimination based on sex."], "id": "10f665a6-ff3e-45ec-b061-1e434cbc2665", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["I recall that Directive 89/391 was adopted on the basis of Article 118 A TEC and that Directive 2003/88 was adopted on the basis of Article 137 TEC, which had replaced Article 118 A and which itself became Article 153 TFEU. Like its predecessors, that provision authorises the Union to adopt minimum requirements to protect the health and safety of \u2018workers\u2019 in general; furthermore, as is apparent from point 43 of this Opinion, although defence comes within the competence of the Member States, that does not prevent the Union from having, in accordance with the power conferred on it in particular by that provision, a encompassing a priori all workers including those employed in that sector, of which military personnel form part."], "id": "9f151ab9-9768-4624-8f16-2bbb1701b921", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2006/54/EC \u2013 Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation \u2013 Articles 14 and 28 \u2013 National collective agreement granting the right to leave following the statutory maternity leave for female workers who bring up their children on their own \u2013 Exclusion of male workers from the right to that leave \u2013 Protection of female workers as regards both the consequences of pregnancy and the condition of maternity \u2013 Conditions under which applicable)"], "id": "42484c4d-6ef0-47cf-af67-a6eb98694ce1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["See the Explanatory memorandum to the Commission\u2019s proposal for a directive, COM(74) 351, final/2 of 21 June 1974, pages 2 to 3 and 5. In the 1970s the transfer of undertakings, collective redundancies and employer insolvency were the three key issues first regulated by the European Union outside the sphere of gender equality \u2014 see Council Resolution of 21 January 1974 concerning a social action programme (OJ 1974 C 13, p. 1)."], "id": "4b538f91-0030-47a2-b3ad-3ad4e679d361", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, the INSS claims in its observations that the pension supplement at issue is justified on grounds of . To that end, the INSS provides numerous statistical data which reveal a difference between the pension payments of men and those of women, and, on the one hand, between the pension payments of childless women or those who have had one child and, on the other, the payments of women who have had at least two children."], "id": "3531800b-7794-4802-bf77-a5b05ca6e235", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["\u201coverriding reasons relating to the public interest\u201d means reasons recognised as such in the case law of the Court of Justice, including the following grounds: public policy; public security; public safety; public health; preserving the financial equilibrium of the social security system; the protection of consumers, recipients of services and workers; fairness of trade transactions; combating fraud; the protection of the environment and the urban environment; the health of animals; intellectual property; the conservation of the national historic and artistic heritage; objectives and cultural policy objectives;"], "id": "60a1d183-74cf-4b27-83da-4a1eab309acb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Labour Court (French-speaking), Belgium)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief \u2013 Internal neutrality rule of a private undertaking \u2013 Prohibition on the wearing of any visible political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace \u2013 Religious clothing obligations \u2013 Article 8 \u2013 More favourable provisions in national law to the protection of the principle of equal treatment \u2013 Margin of discretion of the Member States \u2013 Religion and religious beliefs as an autonomous ground of discrimination)"], "id": "8f1bdd35-b1c0-40d0-8154-4ee370447e98", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["The Court fundamentally recognises maintaining the functionality and ensuring the financial balance of contribution-financed schemes as legitimate objectives. It also grants the Member States a broad discretion with regard to the aims that they wish to pursue in the field of social and employment policy. However, according to settled case-law, they must apply the chosen means in a consistent and systematic manner when pursuing those objectives."], "id": "511906b1-39c8-46ed-b782-d6dd63f0fa5a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["17 The Court has held that the term \u2018pay\u2019 within the meaning of Article 157 TFEU covers pensions which depend on the employment relationship between worker and employer, excluding those deriving from a statutory scheme, to the financing of which workers, employers and possibly the public authorities contribute in a measure determined less by the employment relationship than by considerations of . Accordingly, that concept cannot be extended to encompass social security schemes or benefits \u2013 such as retirement pensions \u2013 which are directly governed by statute to the exclusion of any element of negotiation within the undertaking or occupational sector concerned and which are obligatorily applicable to general categories of employee (see judgment of 22 November 2012, Elbal Moreno, C\u2011385/11, EU:C:2012:746, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e8a5d350-e4cf-4154-bbb1-a60ce65cf9b1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2013 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2013 Clause 5 \u2013 Successive fixed-term employment contracts within the public health service \u2013 Abuse \u2013 Concept of fixed and permanent needs \u2013 Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts \u2013 Conversion into a regulated employment relationship of indefinite duration \u2013 Powers of national courts)"], "id": "cf21d6f0-ac64-4b2a-9937-6c75b923a5b5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["For the sake of completeness, I must reject EPSU\u2019s contention that, by its correspondence and communications, the Commission had given assurances from which it subsequently departed, since it runs counter to the objective of the consultation provided for in the field. As is apparent from point 60 of this Opinion, under Article 154(2) TFEU, before submitting proposals in the social policy field, the Commission is to consult management and labour on the possible direction of Union action. It follows from the very wording of that provision that consultation is designed to enable the various parties to submit their requests and observations, with a view to having the Commission submit, at EU level, a particular proposal. Therefore, if consultation and the provision of related information were considered to create a binding obligation for interested parties, that process would be deprived of its natural content. It thus seems to me impossible to support EPSU\u2019s contention that consultation may cause the parties to such consultation to entertain legitimate expectations as to future political decisions. In addition, as to the possibility of the Commission being bound by its earlier observations or communications it has published, like the position taken by the Commission at the hearing, it is clear to me that those observations or those communications cannot, under any circumstances, alter the powers conferred on that institution by the Treaties and, in particular, by Article 17(2) TEU."], "id": "bc8240fb-268a-4619-8f4d-d410b7a89c3d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["93 The concept of \u2018objective reasons\u2019, within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement, must be understood as referring to precise and concrete circumstances characterising a given activity, which are therefore capable, in that particular context, of justifying the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. Those circumstances may result, in particular, from the specific nature of the tasks for the performance of which such contracts have been concluded and from the inherent characteristics of those tasks or, as the case may be, from pursuit of a legitimate objective of a Member State (judgment of 24 June 2021, Obras y Servicios P\u00fablicos and Acciona Agua, C\u2011550/19, EU:C:2021:514, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "8a3e5661-5b63-435f-993b-de1a7abcf08e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability \u2013 Article 2(2)(a) \u2013 Article 4(1) \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 National legislation laying down auditory acuity requirements for prison officers \u2013 Non-compliance with the prescribed minimum standards of sound perception \u2013 Absolute bar to continued employment)"], "id": "8609aa00-925c-4546-9143-678bec58a83a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Equal treatment in employment and occupation \u2013 Directive 2000/78/EC \u2013 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability \u2013 Article 2(2)(a) \u2013 Article 4(1) \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Articles 21 and 26 \u2013 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities \u2013 Duties of juror in criminal proceedings \u2013 Blind person \u2013 Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings)"], "id": "0f5c8bb8-6da1-483a-93db-2234f5ee33d9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, it merely needs noting that social security schemes are often based on a model of the family in which the man, who is automatically attributed the role as head of the family, is regarded as the person who works and bears all the costs relating to his household. When examining any \u2018objective justification\u2019 it is therefore necessary to examine whether some objectives relied upon to justify a difference in treatment of women have their roots in stereotyped roles or gender stereotypes capable of giving rise to indirect or systemic discrimination. That model, in which stereotypes of the roles of men and women in society persist, no longer reflects the reality of European society. Women today form part of the labour market at all levels, mothers and fathers tend to be in a comparable position in terms of parenting and bringing up children or there are new forms of family structures, such as single-parent families, which no longer conform to the traditional family model."], "id": "6472949d-1811-41b5-b053-6315eaa726c9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2008/94/EC \u2013 Articles 2 and 3 \u2013 Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer \u2013 Concepts of \u2018employees\u2019 outstanding claims\u2019 and \u2018insolvency of an employer\u2019 \u2013 Accident at work \u2013 Death of the employee \u2013 Compensation for non-material damage \u2013 Recovery of the claim against the employer \u2013 Impossible \u2013 Guarantee institution)"], "id": "209da9ef-2a3b-449d-ba08-2e447eaff0c5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2013 Clause 4 \u2013 Principle of non-discrimination \u2013 Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law \u2013 National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment \u2013 Scope \u2013 Inapplicability of clause 4 \u2013 Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)"], "id": "c7f2908a-f1b9-4f35-a931-1c7cd9d1ce21", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it follows from the Court\u2019s case-law that the concept of \u2018objective reasons\u2019, within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement, must be understood as referring to precise and concrete circumstances characterising a given activity, which are therefore capable, in that particular context, of justifying the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. Those circumstances may result, in particular, from the specific nature of the tasks for the performance of which such contracts have been concluded and from the inherent characteristics of those tasks or, as the case may be, from pursuit of a legitimate objective of a Member State (judgment of 14 September 2016, P\u00e9rez L\u00f3pez, C\u201116/15, EU:C:2016:679, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "8c24cfcf-3bc9-4959-955f-cb6d9821eebd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(References for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Protection of the safety and health of workers \u2013 Directive 2003/88/EC \u2013 Article 7 \u2013 Worker unlawfully dismissed then reinstated in his or her employment by decision of a court \u2013 Exclusion of any right to paid annual leave not taken for the period between the dismissal and the reinstatement \u2013 No right to financial compensation in lieu of annual leave not taken for that period where the employment relationship subsequently ceases)"], "id": "ff62570e-2569-4fc5-8bd0-044206301313", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2010/18/EU \u2013 Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave \u2013 National legislation making the grant of a right to parental leave subject to a condition of employment and to the mandatory affiliation in that regard of the worker to the social security scheme concerned on the date on which the child was born)"], "id": "3c73ccc9-0310-4e92-a36e-32baca8e2cca", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["The references to Articles 151 and 153 TFEU in paragraph 85 of the judgment under appeal, which admittedly cover the Union\u2019s objectives, change nothing in that regard. Those provisions are, it is claimed, irrelevant in the present case, which is concerned with assessing the compatibility with Article 31(2) of the Charter of a legislative act adopted on the basis of Article 336 TFEU."], "id": "3f843c84-75b9-4592-9467-d4edf860b071", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["However, I believe that the derogation provided for in Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 is irrelevant in the present case, in the light of the aims pursued by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings. That article lays down a list of aims that a measure must pursue in order to benefit from the derogation. Although that list is admittedly not exhaustive and is purely illustrative, as evidenced by the EU legislature\u2019s use of the word \u2018include\u2019, that circumstance does not mean that any kind of aim whatsoever can be invoked under that article. The Court has already held that the aims which may be considered legitimate within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 are objectives. In particular, in Prigge and Others, it held that the aim of air traffic safety cannot be a legitimate aim within the meaning of that article."], "id": "0ba28737-eedb-4282-8f84-70d5d9d3a6e2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["It should be noted that that case-law has been criticised by academic commentators, who take issue with that change of approach. That said, I would underscore the fact that, irrespective of whether emphasis is placed on the Member States\u2019 margin of discretion in choosing the measures capable of achieving the aims of their as being \u2018reasonable\u2019 or \u2018broad\u2019, the Court has nevertheless held that the margin of discretion cannot have the effect of frustrating the implementation of a fundamental principle of EU law such as that of equal treatment."], "id": "d4080656-e0e7-4437-a669-1b053111dc9c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["However, the Court added that the Community included not only an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, but also a policy in the social sphere. The Court thus found that since the Community had not only an economic but also a social purpose, the rights under the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital had to be balanced against the objectives pursued by , which included, inter alia, improved living and working conditions, so as to make possible their harmonisation while improvement was maintained, proper social protection and dialogue between management and labour. On the basis of a balance struck between the competing interests, the Court subsequently gave guidance on the interpretation of Article 43 EC to the national court enabling it to rule on the dispute before it."], "id": "3f5ade2f-ca07-4396-8659-891cfe169d99", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer \u2014 Directive 2008/94/EC \u2014 Article 8 \u2014 Supplementary pension schemes \u2014 Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits \u2014 Minimum guaranteed level of protection \u2014 Former employer\u2019s obligation to offset a reduction in an occupational old-age pension \u2014 External pension institution \u2014 Direct effect)"], "id": "0fe2f5b7-8751-41d2-9520-5dc6fc6457c2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to the objective of the State, as an employer, of reducing the public-sector wage costs, I note that the Court has ruled that the aims which may be considered \u2018legitimate\u2019 within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 and, consequently, appropriate for the purposes of justifying derogation from the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, are objectives, such as those related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training. As a result of their public interest, such legitimate aims are distinguishable from purely individual reasons particular to the employer\u2019s situation, such as cost reduction or improving competitiveness, although it cannot be ruled out that a national rule may recognise, in the pursuit of those legitimate aims, a certain degree of flexibility for employers."], "id": "ee8e85c3-45e6-461b-98dd-7e77a4badad8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["It is, therefore, beneath the umbrella of the above legal principle that the Court decides whether considerations of , of State organisation, of ethics, or even budgetary concerns which influenced, or may have influenced, the establishment by the national legislature of a particular scheme prevail, so that a given pension scheme falls within Directive 79/7. The three principles elaborated above (point 76) are a guide to determining when Directive 79/7 does not apply to a given pension scheme, but at the same time the guidelines cannot be considered in a vacuum removed from the broader corpus of relevant legal principles. These include, I would add, the importance in the EU legal order of the primary rule prohibiting unequal treatment with respect to pay."], "id": "8f209bf4-5101-45a6-9daf-d2a77dd72793", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["As regards, in the second place, Articles 151 and 153 TFEU, it suffices to observe, as the European Commission has pointed out, that those articles of the Treaty establish the general objectives and measures of the EU\u2019s , and that the right claimed by Ms Baldonedo Mart\u00edn or the obligation for a Member State to ensure such a right cannot be deduced from such provisions (see, to that effect, the judgment of 21 March 2018, Podil\u0103 and Others, C\u2011133/17 and C\u2011134/17, not published, EU:C:2018:203, paragraph 37)."], "id": "46a9490f-ce2f-495d-a042-804d70eac164", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Admissibility \u2014 Article 267 TFEU \u2014 Definition of \u2018court or tribunal of a Member State\u2019 \u2014 Criteria \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2003/88/EC \u2014 Scope \u2014 Article 7 \u2014 Paid annual leave \u2014 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2014 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2014 Clauses 2 and 3 \u2014 Concept of \u2018fixed-term worker\u2019 \u2014 Magistrates and ordinary judges \u2014 Difference in treatment \u2014 Clause 4 \u2014 Principle of non-discrimination \u2014 Concept of \u2018objective grounds\u2019)"], "id": "1f7c7691-7137-4a26-83f7-bc77f8b7ebc4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In terms of identifying the objectives pursued by the Special Scheme for Domestic Workers, the reasons advanced by the Spanish Government and the TGSS \u2013 relating to encouraging recruitment, safeguarding levels of employment, employee protection and combating social security fraud and illegal work \u2013 are indisputably legitimate objectives. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in relation to indirect discrimination, the objective justification cannot consist solely of a list of social policy objectives which appear at first sight to be legitimate: those objectives must be unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. The Court has repeatedly held that mere generalisations are insufficient to show that the aim of a national rule is unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. Consequently, it remains necessary to determine whether the social policy reasons claimed by the Spanish Government and the TGSS are objectively unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex."], "id": "f2029b38-e2c0-465d-bab4-4e9f5085d76c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, in the context of equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation, the Court has already held that encouragement of recruitment undoubtedly constitutes a legitimate aim of . In relation specifically to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7, the Court has held that, concerning access to a statutory unemployment scheme, combating an increase in unlawful employment and circumventing devices was an objective ground of justification."], "id": "6c46437f-e7d1-4889-bb48-6092b2cbf221", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Admissibility \u2014 External and internal independence of the courts \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2003/88/EC \u2014 Working time \u2014 Article 7 \u2014 Paid annual leave \u2014 Magistrates \u2014 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2014 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2014 Clause 4 \u2014 Prohibition on discrimination \u2014 Liability of the Member States for infringements of EU law)"], "id": "9d019bcc-0751-4390-8f61-c98fc299f7fc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["\u201coverriding reasons relating to the public interest\u201d means reasons recognised as such in the case-law of the Court of Justice, including the following grounds: public policy; public security; public safety; public health; preserving the financial equilibrium of the social security system; the protection of consumers, recipients of services and workers; fairness of trade transactions; combating fraud; the protection of the environment and the urban environment; the health of animals; intellectual property; the conservation of the national historic and artistic heritage; objectives and cultural policy objectives."], "id": "7c3ff7c3-fcb6-43d2-92a3-246094812821", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Article 4(8) of Directive 2006/123 states that the overriding reasons relating to the public interest on which the Member States are entitled to rely are reasons recognised as such in the case-law of the Court, which include, in particular, grounds relating to the protection of the urban environment (judgment of 30 January 2018, X and Visser, C\u2011360/15 and C\u201131/16, EU:C:2018:44, paragraph 135), and objectives."], "id": "e9fa2861-859f-470b-9b2d-12f12b6a2283", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["As regards the budgetary considerations referred to by the Spanish Government, it should be borne in mind that, whilst those considerations may underlie a Member State\u2019s choice of and influence the nature or scope of the measures which it wishes to adopt, they do not in themselves constitute an aim pursued by that policy and, therefore, cannot justify discrimination."], "id": "d577a00e-b2c7-407e-a360-eda3bb6e9778", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Organisation of working time \u2014 Directive 2003/88/EC \u2014 Article 6(b) and Article 16 \u2014 Maximum weekly working time \u2014 Derogation \u2014 Article 17(2) and (3) and the first paragraph of Article 19 \u2014 Police officers \u2014 Reference period \u2014 Rolling or fixed nature \u2014 Protection of the safety and health of workers)"], "id": "3ef99219-2c2f-40dc-8536-23102261b6b0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Fixed-term employment \u2014 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2014 Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP \u2014 Principle of non-discrimination of fixed-term workers \u2014 Staff employed under an administrative contract \u2014 Grant of additional remuneration \u2014 Remuneration for promotion and development in a professional career \u2014 Exclusion of contract staff \u2014 Comparability of situations \u2014 Justification \u2014 Definition of \u2018objective grounds\u2019)"], "id": "933568ec-3be6-4646-89ae-9c8b98eaf948", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Framework Agreement on part-time work \u2013 Clause 4 \u2013 Principle of non-discrimination \u2013 Less favourable treatment of part-time workers compared to full-time workers as regards their conditions of employment \u2013 Prohibition \u2013 National legislation fixing a maximum duration of fixed-term employment that is longer for part-time workers than for full-time workers \u2013 Principle of pro rata temporis \u2013 Directive 2006/54/EC \u2013 Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation \u2013 Article 2(1)(b) \u2013 Concept of \u2018indirect discrimination\u2019 on grounds of sex \u2013 Article 14(1)(c) \u2013 Employment and working conditions \u2013 Article 19 \u2013 Burden of proof)"], "id": "508548e3-e47e-4b09-aeba-9fe2c847d309", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["Commission Communication of 14 December 1993 presented by the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament concerning the application of the agreement on (COM(93) 600 final); Commission Communication of 18 September 1996 concerning the Development of the Social Dialogue at Community level (COM(96) 448 final); Communication from the Commission of 20 May 1998 adapting and promoting the social dialogue at Community level (COM(1998) 322 final); and Communication from the Commission of 2 October 2013 to the European Parliament, Council, the European Economic and Social Committeee and to the Committee of the Regions, \u2018Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps\u2019 (COM(2013) 685 final)."], "id": "549908b2-5b85-4d3a-9487-981249ffd196", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["The Council, for its part, is required to verify whether the Commission has fulfilled its obligations under the treaties and in particular Title X of the third part of the TFEU, on , because, if that is not the case, it runs the risk of ratifying a procedural irregularity capable of vitiating the measure ultimately adopted by it (see, by analogy, the judgment of 17 June 1998, UEAPME v Council, T\u2011135/96, EU:T:1998:128, paragraph 87). Furthermore, both the applicants and the Commission recognise that the Council has a discretion as to whether it is appropriate for it to adopt a decision implementing an agreement and that it may not be able to adopt such a decision in the absence of agreement by qualified majority or unanimity, depending on the case, within the Council."], "id": "84a87879-7a44-41af-a936-f3149fe4aab1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["In respect of consultation, Article 154(2) TFEU provides that before submitting proposals in the field, the Commission is to consult management and labour on the possible direction of Union action. Next, Article 154(3) TFEU provides that if, after that first round of consultation, the Commission considers Union action advisable, it is to consult management and labour again on the content of the envisaged proposal."], "id": "faeeda0a-2238-471a-8b84-c62d382dfb7d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Social policy", "masked_sentences": ["(References for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 1999/70/EC \u2013 Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work \u2013 Clause 5 \u2013 Concept of \u2018successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships\u2019 \u2013 Failure by the employer to respect the relevant legal deadline for definitively filling posts temporarily occupied by fixed-term workers \u2013 Implicit extension of the employment relationship from year to year \u2013 Occupation by a fixed-term worker of the same post in the context of two consecutive appointments \u2013 Concept of \u2018objective reasons\u2019 justifying the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships \u2013 Respect for the reasons for recruitment provided for by the national legislation \u2013 Concrete examination finding that the successive renewal of fixed-term employment relationships seeks to cover the employer\u2019s permanent and regular staffing needs \u2013 Measures seeking to prevent and, where appropriate, to punish abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships \u2013 Selection procedures seeking to definitively fill posts occupied temporarily by fixed-term workers \u2013 Conversion of the situation of fixed-term workers into \u2018non-permanent workers of indefinite duration\u2019 \u2013 Grant to the worker of compensation equal to that paid in the event of unfair dismissal \u2013 Applicability of the Framework Agreement despite the fact that the worker consented to successive renewals of fixed-term contracts \u2013 Clause 5(1) \u2013 Absence of obligation for national courts to disapply inconsistent national legislation)"], "id": "40ddde2b-afde-42bc-8265-40b6f28c2be1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social policy", "masked_sentences": ["The measure implemented by the Province of Upper Austria at issue in the main proceedings is not after all a general measure comparable to a fiscal or other regulation. Although its housing funding policy is a general measure designed to support both individual beneficiaries and the general welfare needs of the province, the funding loans granted under that general housing funding policy, during the course of which the contested losses were incurred, represent a bundle of very specific measures adopted case by case for individual beneficiaries."], "id": "f4204b86-bd40-435e-b342-d002c94ce940", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["The provisions of the TFEU refer to both \u2018third countries\u2019 and \u2018third States\u2019. However, it should be noted that many provisions dealing with issues concerning use the term \u2018third countries\u2019, since international society is not made up of \u2018States\u2019 alone. In particular, Part Five of the TFEU, headed \u2018The Union\u2019s external action\u2019, reflects the fact that international society is composed of various actors and, therefore, contains Title III on cooperation \u2018with third countries\u2019 and Title VI on relations \u2018with international organisations and third countries\u2019."], "id": "ddff8937-86ad-47e9-a0d3-782b072678e1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["Eeckhout, P., EU Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford 2012, p. 486, states that the Council is the most important institution in the sphere of the common foreign and security policy. Although the adoption of decisions in application of the FEU Treaty is characterised by a clear separation of powers between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which requires constant cooperation between those institutions, the Council clearly \u2018controls\u2019 the common foreign and security policy. The author explains that the functions carried out by the Council in that sphere are mainly of an \u2018executive\u2019 nature."], "id": "73ff7d8b-b25a-407c-b60a-4be16af6f3aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["9 A significant number of international agreements to which the European Union is a party are concluded as mixed agreements. Rosas cited a study conducted in 2001 that found 154 mixed agreements. The number is likely higher today. See Rosas, A., \u2018Mixity Past, Present and Future: Some Observations\u2019, in Chamon, M. and Govaere, I. (eds), EU Post-Lisbon, Brill NV, Leiden, 2020, pp. 8-18, at p. 4."], "id": "73974284-20a4-4671-b1cd-6dde96c50f01", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["GVC maintains that EU law is applicable to Gibraltar, which is a European territory for whose a Member State is responsible within the meaning of Article 355(3) TFEU, and that the distribution of dividends falls outside the exclusion provisions laid down in Articles 28 to 30 of the 1972 Act of Accession. In that regard, the applicant takes the view that its parent company satisfies the requirements of Article 2 of Directive 2011/96, in that it can be equated with a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, and is subject to corporation tax in Gibraltar \u2013 which, it argues, can be equated with \u2018corporation tax in the United Kingdom\u2019, as referred to in the last indent of Part B of Annex I to the directive."], "id": "aa958f97-088c-49d9-8ff1-4189c771fb98", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["See, in that regard, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Rosneft (C\u201172/15, EU:C:2016:381, points 36 to 76), and Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in SatCen v KF (C\u201114/19 P, EU:C:2020:220, points 51 to 85). See further, for example, Butler, G., Constitutional Law of the EU\u2019s Common Foreign and Security Policy: Competence and Institutions in , Hart, 2019, pp. 145-222."], "id": "d5b6338b-9335-4589-8403-e54a92334682", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["74. There is thus no legal nor factual basis upon which to hold that the European Union exceeded the boundaries of its discretion in the conduct of by not continuing to permit British nationals residing within the European Union to exercise the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in Member State municipal elections after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, either by way of a unilateral decision or the outcome of negotiations with the United Kingdom."], "id": "c27a7b48-c26c-40c4-b451-a17f010a70e0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["Article 4(3) TEU could be applied on its own, in particular because the subject of the dispute fell within the sphere of the of the European Union and because the European Union was a party to the agreement. The Court accordingly held that, where the subject matter of an agreement or convention falls partly within the competence of the European Union and partly within that of its Member States, it is essential to ensure close cooperation between the Member States and the EU institutions, both in the process of negotiation and conclusion and in the fulfilment of the commitments entered into. The Court inferred therefrom that the obligation to cooperate flows from the requirement of unity in the international representation of the European Union (judgment of 20 April 2010, Commission v Sweden, C\u2011246/07, EU:C:2010:203, paragraph 73). See also, judgment of 30 May 2006, Commission v Ireland (C\u2011459/03, EU:C:2006:345)."], "id": "460cea96-043e-4f74-ae27-b1f993d4f5dd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["80. However, the procedure under Article 218 TFEU ensures that EU institutions enjoy similar powers when competences are exercised in as those that they enjoy in internal legislative procedures. The Court has recognised as much in its case-law. It confirmed that Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU (69) lays down the procedure applicable in the case of agreements which cover areas to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies. (70) It has considered that the two procedures ensure a similar institutional balance. (71) In both cases, the Commission enjoys the power of initiative, the Council decides by qualified majority and the consent of the European Parliament is required."], "id": "90e2639b-f9ac-4fd4-b7f4-13e54f599a7b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["See Opinion of Advocate General J\u00e4\u00e4skinen in L\u2019Or\u00e9al and Others (C\u2011324/09, EU:C:2010:757, point 125), and my recent Opinion in Google (Territorial scope of de-referencing) (C\u2011507/17, EU:C:2019:15, points 51 to 53). See, also, J\u00e4\u00e4skinen, N., Ward, A., \u2018The External Reach of EU Private Law in the Light of L\u2019Or\u00e9al versus eBay and Google and Google Spain\u2019, in Cremona, M., Micklitz, H.W., Private Law in the of the EU, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, pp. 128 and 144."], "id": "c5d1457f-7ea4-47fc-be79-277f598d420c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["158 Fourthly, contrary to what the Commission claims, the recognition of the applicant\u2019s capacity to bring legal proceedings before the General Court does not transform the latter into a \u2018quasi-international\u2019 court. First of all, the present dispute does not concern the international \u2018dispute\u2019 to which the applicant is a party, but an action for annulment of an EU act. Next, in so far as it is solely for the General Court to ascertain whether the applicant satisfies the conditions of admissibility specific to EU law, and in particular those arising from the concept of \u2018legal person\u2019, the admission of its action is made within the strict framework of the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the General Court by EU law. Finally, since the exercise of the powers conferred on the EU institutions in international matters cannot escape judicial review, recognition of the applicant\u2019s capacity to bring proceedings before the courts cannot have the consequence that the General Court takes the place of the institutions managing the of the European Union and adopts a \u2018political\u2019 decision. Moreover, the General Court cannot give priority to considerations of international policy and expediency over the rules on admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment delivered today, Front Polisario v Council, T\u2011279/19, paragraphs 109 to 113 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "5846c501-393c-4b00-b821-60c14b5e7783", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["Although the use of the Article 218(11) TFEU procedure remains relatively rare, the Opinions of the Court based on that provision have nonetheless generally been of considerable practical importance, not least because of the clarification which they have provided regarding the scope of the Union\u2019s competences in the field of international law, international agreements and cognate matters. The Court\u2019s Opinions have accordingly enunciated fundamental principles of law, ranging from the exclusivity of Union competences to the principle of autonomy and its application in particular to international dispute settlements. Some of the Opinions of the Court have laid down constitutional principles of significance which go beyond the immediate questions raised or even the confines of EU external relations law."], "id": "5b29ce15-cd7d-473d-9b60-0beeff5a80a2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, whenever the Member States act jointly in the Union\u2019s interest since the Union itself is prevented from exercising its external competence on account of the rules of international law, they do not act as representatives of the Union but act in their own name as its trustees. In consequence, they (and not the Union) become subjects of rights and obligations flowing from the concluded agreements. I am thus of the view that the sixth sentence of Article 17(1) TEU, in so far as it provides for the Commission\u2019s prerogative of representation of the Union in , is not applicable to situations where the Union is not acting in its own name."], "id": "c575a725-6a02-4b54-b68b-8cee18019338", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["342 In this regard, in the first place it should be borne in mind that, in the context of , and in particular of commercial policy, the institutions enjoy a broad margin of appreciation, given the complexity of the assessments, particularly of a political and economic nature, which they are required to make in that context (see judgment of 27 September 2007, Ikea Wholesale, C\u2011351/04, EU:C:2007:547, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). Moreover, in the context of an association agreement such as the one at issue in the present case, which constitutes a complex contractual entity comprising several strands and reflects the common will of the parties to establish close relations and, where appropriate, to intensify them (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 February 2018, Western Sahara Campaign UK, C\u2011266/16, EU:C:2018:118, paragraphs 59 to 61), the institutions must be able to reconcile the various interests arising in relations with the non-member State which is a partner of the European Union and determine the most appropriate strategy in that regard (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 25 September 2019, Magnan v Commission, T\u201199/19, EU:T:2019:693, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1ac4024c-791c-4c26-bae7-6708175ab08e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["609 It follows, first, from the note of 22 April 2004 that representation and reception expenses were intended primarily to promote the of the Court of Auditors and that its Members represented it inter alia when they maintained, in the interest of that institution, professional contacts with individuals holding positions within the European Union, Member States or other countries."], "id": "4f2ea6a8-6ce7-4d07-a99d-56f5de017623", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["Mr De Esteban Alonso is a former official of the Commission who has been retired since 1 August 2006 and who, inter alia, served as Director of the Information technology, Publications and Directorate at the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) from 1 January 1993 to 31 January 1997, before being appointed to another post at the Commission."], "id": "f347c5c6-abd8-4567-b176-dffb15778fe0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["The appellant entered the service of the European Commission as an official in 1994. In 1999, while working at the Commission\u2019s Directorate-General (DG) for , he or she was entrusted with the management of the Commission\u2019s buildings in third countries. From 1 January 2011, the appellant was posted to the EEAS. On 1 January 2016 the appellant took early retirement."], "id": "e9b29ebd-f4c5-467b-8982-9c2bc5be32e9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["334 In that regard, in the first place, it must be recalled that, while the case-law recognises that the institutions have a broad margin of discretion in areas which involve complex assessments, in particular of a political and economic nature, such as and fisheries policy, the judicial review of a manifest error of assessment requires that the EU institutions which adopted the act in question must be able to show before the EU Courts that in adopting the act they actually exercised their discretion, which presupposes the taking into consideration of all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation the act was intended to regulate. Moreover, the institutions\u2019 discretion may be limited, including in the context of such areas, by a legal concept establishing objective criteria (see, to that effect, judgment delivered today, Front Polisario v Council, T\u2011279/19, paragraphs 342 to 347 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "03464d53-cbf4-44a6-8bf7-e1e85a86f130", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["99 In that regard, the EU institutions enjoy broad discretion in policy decisions in the conduct of (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2016, Swiss International Air Lines, C\u2011272/15, EU:C:2016:993, paragraph 24). In the exercise of their prerogatives in that area, those institutions may enter into international agreements based, inter alia, on the principle of reciprocity and mutual advantages. Thus, they are not required to grant, unilaterally, third-country nationals rights such as the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the Member State of residence, which, moreover, is reserved solely to Union citizens, under Article 20(2)(b) TFEU, Article 22 TFEU and Article 40 of the Charter."], "id": "56f779c4-4b22-4cf5-899a-0c4d535ab315", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it is now established that Gibraltar is a European territory for whose a Member State (namely, the United Kingdom) is responsible, and that EU law is applicable to that territory pursuant to Article 355(3) TFEU. By way, however, of derogation from Article 355(3) TFEU, under the 1972 Act of Accession, EU acts (including legislative acts) do not apply to Gibraltar in certain areas of EU law."], "id": "5363aa35-4bc2-49c2-bd2e-595483c05701", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it should be noted that paragraphs 61 to 67 of the application contain a summary of the legal arguments by which the applicant challenges by his fourth plea, alleging infringement of the EU rules on the use of languages, the lawfulness of the notice of competition in the light of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 L 17, p. 385), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 adapting certain regulations and decisions in the fields of free movement of goods, freedom of movement for persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, transport policy, energy, taxation, statistics, trans-European networks, judiciary and fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security, environment, customs union, , foreign, security and defence policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1) (\u2018Regulation No 1\u2019), and of the principle of equal treatment. That summary is sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Parliament to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power of review. The fourth plea must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "331b8785-7337-4604-ac7a-4fecdcd39912", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["Since, during the period relevant to the main proceedings, Gibraltar was a European territory for whose a Member State, namely the United Kingdom, was responsible, EU law was, in principle, applicable in that territory pursuant to Article 355(3) TFEU, subject to the express exemptions set out in the 1972 Act of Accession (judgment of 23 September 2003, Commission vUnited Kingdom, C\u201130/01, EU:C:2003:489, paragraph 47; order of 12 October 2017, Fisher, C\u2011192/16, EU:C:2017:762, paragraph 29; and judgment of 23 January 2018, Buhagiar and Others, C\u2011267/16, EU:C:2018:26, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "022564e9-dde2-4ea3-ae58-3feafb0e05ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["It therefore seems necessary to examine the national legislation in the light of the freedoms of movement and, in particular, the freedom of establishment. Indeed, as already said, Gibraltar is a European territory for whose a Member State is responsible, and that EU law is in principle applicable to that territory pursuant to Article 355(3) TFEU. It is also clear and established that the exclusions of the territory of Gibraltar from the application of Union acts in certain areas of law, laid down in the 1972 Act of Accession, do not relate to the freedom of establishment or to the free movement of capital, guaranteed by Articles 49 and 63 TFEU respectively. In other words, Articles 49 and 63 TFEU apply to the territory of Gibraltar by virtue of Article 355(3) TFEU."], "id": "453ea044-d77e-4f37-a93d-beb9239e9cbd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["98 As regards, secondly, the examination of the validity of Decision 2020/135 in the light of the principle of proportionality, it must be pointed out that there is nothing in the documents before the Court to suggest that the European Union, as a contracting party to the Withdrawal Agreement, exceeded the limits of its discretion in the conduct of , by not requiring that, in that agreement in general or in Article 127 thereof in particular, a right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the Member State of residence be provided for United Kingdom nationals who exercised their right to reside in a Member State before the end of the transition period."], "id": "07f05401-1912-4e2d-97c1-91d0a0d672d8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["14 The term was coined by Rosas, A., \u2018Mixed Union \u2013 Mixed Agreements\u2019, in Koskenniemi, M. (ed.), International Law Aspects of the European Union, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 1998, p. 131. See also Chamon, M. and Govaere, I., \u2018Introduction: Facultative Mixity, More than Just a Childhood Disease of EU Law?\u2019 in Chamon, M. and Govaere, I. (eds), EU Post-Lisbon, Brill NV, Leiden, 2020, p. 2; Govaere, I., \u2018Facultative\u2019 and \u2018Functional Mixity\u2019 in light of the Principle of Partial and Imperfect Conferral, College of Europe Research Paper in Law 03/2019; Hillion, C. and Chamon, M., \u2018Facultative Mixity and Sincere Cooperation\u2019, in Chamon, M. and Govaere, I. (eds), EU External Relations Post-Lisbon, Brill NV, Leiden, 2020, p. 86."], "id": "1743b95d-90b6-4b83-954c-4dd709f2f239", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["25 That decision was accompanied by a note of 22 April 2004 for the attention of the Members of the Court of Auditors containing \u2018suggestions with regard to representation and reception expenses\u2019 (\u2018the note of 22 April 2004\u2019). According to that note: \u2018\u2026 Representation expenses are intended primarily to promote the of the Court [of Auditors]. Members represent the Court [of Auditors] inter alia when they maintain, in the interest of the Court [of Auditors], professional contacts with individuals holding positions within the European Union \u2026, Member States or other countries. \u2026 Expenditure for each event must be commensurate with its size and the status of the attendees. When Members represent the Court [of Auditors], their spouse/partner may also be called upon to attend the event. Guests may also be accompanied. Friends or personal contacts must be given private invitations. \u2026 Relevant guidance is provided in Annex 1. Expenses must be declared clearly and succinctly using Annex 2.\u2019"], "id": "5c7b080f-3443-42dd-9714-9d0a652a8b12", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["66 See, for example, De Baere, G. and Roes, T., \u2018EU loyalty as good faith\u2019, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 64, 2015, p. 829; Cremona, M. (ed.), Structural Principles in EU Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2018; Van Elsuwege, P., \u2018The Duty of Sincere Cooperation and Its Implications for Autonomous Member State Action in the Field of External Relations\u2019, in Varju, M. (ed.), Between Compliance and Particularism: Member State Interests and European Union Law, Springer, Cham, 2019, p. 283; Eckes, C., \u2018Disciplining Member States: EU Loyalty in External Relations\u2019, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, vol. 22, 2020, p. 85."], "id": "2ce3ed1f-9a9c-4a92-b29d-2146ed0b2325", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["80. Any other interpretation would threaten the balance between the institution whose role is to express the general interest of the European Union and the governments, which is at the heart of the legal structure of the European Union. (33) Indeed, no more would be required, in order to defeat the restrictions inherent in the European Union having exclusive competence in certain areas, than for the Council, acting on its own initiative, to empower the Member States to act pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU, when adopting an act proposed by the Commission which did not envisage any such empowerment. In the context of , that could mean that, even in an area in which the European Union has exclusive competence, the Council was able to authorise the Member States to act alongside the European Union, which could undermine its exclusive competence. (34)"], "id": "cbca8469-46d4-4acc-ad84-4db2fe595ac0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["69. Relying on the notion of pre-emption allows for the resolution of another common confusion in EU , the one by which the question of the EU\u2019s implied external competence is conflated with that of the exclusivity of its external competence. (58) Namely, the EU has implied external competence in all areas in which it has internal competence (exclusive or shared). The exercise of a competence envisaged internally as shared precludes Member States from exercising that competence internally or externally. (59)"], "id": "956f55b9-0f15-4609-9b8e-d16ec758cde3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["65. The inability of Member States to enter into international agreements if doing so would affect common rules is also the result of pre-emption. However, in the organisation of the Treaties, such pre-emption is placed under the provision relating to exclusive competences (Article 3(2) TFEU). That might be the reason why the exercise of competences in is often seen and explained differently from the exercise of competences in internal relations."], "id": "6855fe99-7faf-46e6-b934-a23c19a6b778", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["72. It should also be observed that the case-law acknowledges that the EU institutions enjoy a broad discretion in policy decisions adopted in the conduct of . (49) In the exercise of their external policy prerogatives, the EU institutions may therefore legitimately enter into international agreements with their partners based on the principle of reciprocity and mutual advantages. (50)"], "id": "4107e9b9-3496-4976-9048-878274925004", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["113 In the fifth place, as regards the Commission\u2019s claim that the General Court is substituting itself for the institutions managing the of the European Union and adopting a \u2018political\u2019 decision by recognising the applicant\u2019s capacity to bring legal proceedings, it must be borne in mind that the exercise of the powers conferred on the EU institutions in international matters cannot escape judicial review. Moreover, the EU Courts cannot give precedence to considerations of international policy and expediency over the rules on admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU without overstepping their jurisdiction (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 25 September 2019, Magnan v Commission, T\u201199/19, EU:T:2019:693, paragraphs 34 and 42 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "1f4ed99a-266d-4ea5-a962-c33950e69f2f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["As regards EU law, Gibraltar is a European territory for whose a Member State is responsible within the meaning of Article 355(3) TFEU and to which the provisions of the Treaties apply. The Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties (\u2018the 1972 Act of Accession\u2019) provides, however, that certain parts of the Treaty are not to apply to Gibraltar."], "id": "840857b3-fa6a-4d76-9810-8b7e675d241a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["Mr Pinxten was a Member of the ECA from 1 March 2006 to 30 April 2018 when his mandate expired. He was assigned to Chamber III of that institution, responsible for auditing the European Union\u2019s expenditure on , enlargement and humanitarian aid. From 4 April 2011 until 30 April 2018, Mr Pinxten held the office of Dean of Chamber III."], "id": "546fc868-ad75-46bc-9e63-e108db3844be", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["According to Mr De Esteban Alonso, although he was not \u2018referred to by name\u2019 in the conclusions of the OLAF report, he was nonetheless \u2018implicated\u2019. The note of 19 March 2003 referred to him implicitly, but necessarily, given his capacity as Director of Information technology, Publications and and as Mr Byk\u2019s superior. That is why an investigation file concerning him was opened on 4 April 2013 after OLAF forwarded the note to the French judicial authorities. Similarly, he was placed under formal investigation on the basis of the information contained in the note. Contrary to what is claimed by the Commission in its appeal, the General Court relied on the information that was contained in the note and merely corroborated by the dismissal order."], "id": "9826634c-f199-4224-892b-c5959087f06b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["92. In reality the second plea is intrinsically linked to the first in that they both relate to the same difficulty; that of the power to authorise the Member States to act in an area in which the European Union has exclusive competence in the context of . However, while the first plea concerns the relationship between the rules contained in Article 2(1) TFEU and the Commission\u2019s right of initiative, the second relates to the interpretation of Article 2(1) TFEU."], "id": "e6e70db5-8e2f-4a7f-aae3-34b60f8d3c2d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["Whilst it is necessary that the sphere in question is demarcated in a sufficiently precise manner, the question arises whether, in view in particular of the third question referred \u2014 given that it concerns the options open to a Contracting Party when another Contracting Party enters a reservation and is located in the field of \u2014 it is appropriate to rely also on case-law concerning Article 3(2) TFEU."], "id": "ab4dcdc3-e53b-439b-acab-e217d88517bb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "External Relations", "masked_sentences": ["For the overview of the case-law, see Wouters, J., Hoffmeister, F., De Beere, G., Ramopoulos, T., The Law of EU . Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor, Third edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 24, 25, 139 and 166. See also Van Elsuwege, P., \u2018The Duty of Sincere Cooperation and its Implications for Autonomous Member State Action in the Field of External Relations\u2019 in Varju, M., (ed.), Between Compliance and Particularism. Member State Interests and European Union Law, Springer, Cham, pp. 283-297."], "id": "493061d5-45c2-4397-8806-c87b08f2020d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["It follows that the provisions of the TFEU relating to \u2018third countries\u2019 are clearly intended to pave the way for the conclusion of international agreements with entities \u2018other than States\u2019. Thus, the European Union may conclude international agreements with territorial entities, covered by the flexible concept of \u2018country\u2019, which have the capacity to conclude treaties under international law but which are not necessarily \u2018States\u2019 for the purposes of international law. To claim the contrary would be to create a legal vacuum in the European Union\u2019s ."], "id": "3caa3532-0146-45f5-b0dd-33fcc679a817", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "external relations", "masked_sentences": ["The applicant argued that EU law was applicable to Gibraltar, which had the status of a European territory for whose the United Kingdom is responsible. The applicant relied on Article 355(3) TFEU and contended that the payment of dividends did not come within the exceptions in Articles 28 to 30 of the 1972 Act of Accession. In this connection, the applicant took the view that the parent company satisfied the requirements of Article 2 of Directive 2011/96: it could be equated with a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and was subject to corporation tax in Gibraltar, which was able to be equated with corporation tax in the United Kingdom, as referred to in Annex I, Part B, to Directive 2011/96."], "id": "274409aa-d135-4e07-980d-9ecda118486e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Those considerations lead me to conclude that a decision to revoke the assurance as to the grant of nationality, such as the contested decision, which entails the permanent loss of by the person concerned, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground of administrative offences related to road safety, specifically offences which do not entail the withdrawal of the individual\u2019s driving licence, is not in compliance with the principle of proportionality under EU law."], "id": "c53bc883-5d09-45b9-8b90-4c75aa9a37f6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Furthermore, it is indisputably the contested decision that led to JY\u2019s permanent loss of , and it is therefore the Austrian authorities which are obliged to ensure that a national such as JY does not lose citizenship of the Union, as conferred by Article 20 TFEU, depriving her of all of the rights attaching thereto, contrary to the principle of proportionality."], "id": "2d28a772-485a-4ac5-bb7c-9051ac001d00", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["With regard, first, to the consistency of the national legislation, I will simply pose the following question: is it consistent, for a national legal system, that offences related to road safety cannot be regarded as sufficiently serious to entail the withdrawal of a driving licence but can lead to the revocation of the assurance as to the grant of nationality from the person concerned and to the loss of and all the rights attaching thereto?"], "id": "a4a7d811-fa0c-454c-af62-6095170ff1f9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In that context, it must be borne in mind that the rights which third-country nationals derive from the provisions of EU law on are not autonomous rights of those nationals, but rights derived from the exercise of freedom of movement and residence by a Union citizen. The purpose and justification of those derived rights are based on the fact that a refusal to allow such rights would be liable to interfere with the Union citizen\u2019s freedom of movement by discouraging him or her from exercising his or her rights of entry into and residence in the host Member State (judgment of 16 July 2015, Singh and Others, C\u2011218/14, EU:C:2015:476, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "21c63d3c-402b-4b76-8953-83b9ab390960", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Contrary to what the Austrian Government essentially contends, the situation of a national of a Member State who, like JY, has renounced his or her original nationality with the sole aim of satisfying the condition to obtain the assurance of the grant of Austrian nationality imposed by the national legislation and, therefore, for the sole purpose of recovering , cannot be categorised as \u2018voluntary renunciation\u2019. As the Commission points out, such a renunciation occurred where the Austrian authorities had given JY the assurance that, aside from relinquishing her former citizenship, all the other conditions for the grant of Austrian nationality were fulfilled. It is therefore clear, as is apparent from her observations, that JY wanted to retain her citizenship of the Union."], "id": "768cfa94-3df0-469a-96e8-66964608c9b6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Freedom of movement for persons \u2014 \u2014 Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States \u2014 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2014 Article 17(1)(a) \u2014 Right of permanent residence \u2014 Acquisition before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence \u2014 Workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age for entitlement to an old age pension)"], "id": "02e5b443-c91a-4230-8b3b-07b105d71053", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["With regard to the limitations on exercising the right to move and reside within the territory of the European Union as a whole, the competent authorities and the national courts should also take account of the fact that, following the revocation of the assurance of nationality, the person concerned, as is the case with JY, would no longer be able to recover his or her and that the loss of that status will therefore become permanent."], "id": "0d9339ce-86ab-4b2c-964e-f3eb7659f8a4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["53. Subsequent judgments have clarified that \u2018the Treaty provisions on do not confer any autonomous right on third-country nationals\u2019 and that \u2018any rights conferred on [such nationals] by the Treaty provisions on citizenship of the Union are not autonomous rights of those nationals but rights derived from those enjoyed by the Union citizen\u2019. (25) The Court explained that the foregoing concerned very specific situations in which the effectiveness of such citizenship of the Union would be undermined, \u2018if, as a consequence of refusal of such a right [of residence for the third-country national], that citizen would be obliged in practice to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole, thus denying him the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status\u2019. (26)"], "id": "2e1e4ef5-748b-49af-8c48-5f5483d49d6b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Articles 20 and 21 TFEU \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States \u2013 Decision to terminate a person\u2019s residence on grounds of public policy \u2013 Preventive measures to avoid any risk of the person concerned absconding during the period allowed for that person to leave the territory of the host Member State \u2013 National provisions similar to those applicable to third-country nationals under Article 7(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC \u2013 Maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal \u2013 National provision identical to that applicable to third-country nationals)"], "id": "aab993e0-d764-45e5-be31-35d638657b96", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Article 21 TFEU \u2013 Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 15 \u2013 Decision restricting free movement on grounds other than public policy, public security or public health \u2013 Illegal residence of a Union citizen in the host Member State \u2013 Expulsion decision \u2013 Physical departure of the Union citizen from the host Member State \u2013 Temporal effects of the expulsion decision \u2013 Articles 5, 6 and 7 \u2013 Possibility of the Union citizen enjoying a new right of entry or of residence on his or her return to the host Member State)"], "id": "5525369e-34fd-4b68-86f4-795ac363fed0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["10 Article 20 TFEU states: \u20181. is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship. 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: (a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; \u2026\u2019 Austrian law"], "id": "6fe77b88-0dbf-462e-ae5f-ac96a8e616d3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In its written observations, the French Government states that JY\u2019s loss of her is solely the result of the decision of the Estonian authorities which, without waiting for JY actually to acquire Austrian nationality, approved her application to renounce Estonian nationality. In its view, the approval of an application to renounce the nationality of a Member State made by a citizen of the Union must be made subject to the actual acquisition of the nationality of another Member State or of a third country in order to prevent that citizen being rendered stateless, albeit temporarily."], "id": "fc9033ba-eec4-4ddd-8f47-5441ee47bc59", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, I would like to come back to the point raised previously, namely that the proviso formulated by the Court in the judgment in Micheletti and Others encompasses both the conditions governing the acquisition of nationality and those governing its loss. The principle laid down in that judgment was confirmed in the judgments in Rottmann and Tjebbes and Others. That principle therefore applies in cases such as the present one, which concern the conditions governing the acquisition of nationality, in so far as those conditions entail the loss of by the person concerned. Thus, in the case of citizens of the Union, the exercise of powers in the sphere of the loss and acquisition of nationality, since it affects all the rights conferred and protected by the EU legal order, is amenable to a judicial review conducted in the light of EU law."], "id": "e89ed3cc-b47d-4079-8694-8213cc4b8894", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["The judgment in Tjebbes and Others, paragraph 32. I note that it is stated in this paragraph that not only do situations that are \u2018capable of causing [individuals] to lose [that] status\u2019 fall, by reason of their nature and their consequences, within the scope of EU law (judgment in Rottmann, paragraph 42), but also those in which the individuals \u2018are faced with losing the status conferred by Article 20 TFEU and the rights attaching thereto\u2019. My emphasis. In my view, the description of that second type of situation is more direct since it refers to situations in which the persons concerned are forced to face up to the loss of ."], "id": "a375eac6-57bf-4001-b278-4620ddc1fd5f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["54. That line of case-law thus created a derived right of residence to cover very specific situations in the field of third-country nationals\u2019 rights of residence which falls within the competence of the Member States. Since that derived right of residence is granted solely for the benefit of the Union citizen, it was agreed in return for that encroachment that provision would not be made for any autonomous right for those nationals but merely a right of residence in recognition of the of their dependent child for the duration of that state of dependency."], "id": "06a1c666-77e8-45a8-b8cf-213706788ea3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["31 Thus, EP is in a different situation from that with regard to which the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) held that the loss of does not disproportionately affect the civil and political rights of the person concerned, since that person was entitled to vote in the referendum on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and in the general election held in 2019 in that State. However, that is not the case for EP."], "id": "6cc51caf-89ff-44bf-b387-5910b00f19f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2014 Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor children \u2014 Article 7(1)(b) \u2014 Condition of having sufficient resources \u2014 Resources consisting of income from work carried out without a residence and work permit)"], "id": "361e5c2b-4b78-4e68-a695-9f9506112b3c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["If the Court held, in that judgment, that the situation at issue fell within the scope of EU law, I fail to see how the view could be taken that a situation such as that of JY, in which the contested decision meant that a national of a Member State was faced with the permanent loss of her and, therefore, not the loss of the substance of the rights conferred by Article 20 TFEU but that of all of those rights, is not covered by EU law, whereas, unlike Mr Ruiz Zambrano\u2019s children, JY has exercised her right of free movement by going to and lawfully residing in the territory of another Member State."], "id": "911be57e-5f6c-4229-8d96-9521111099e1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["According to recital 1 of the ECI Regulation, \u2018the [TEU] reinforces and enhances further the democratic functioning of the Union by providing, inter alia, that every citizen is to have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union by way of a European citizens\u2019 initiative. That procedure affords citizens the possibility of directly approaching the Commission with a request inviting it to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties similar to the right conferred on the European Parliament under Article 225 [TFEU] and on the Council under Article 241 TFEU\u2019."], "id": "dfcced86-8fbb-4e24-b94f-ce97856ca34b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["I would recall in that regard that, after stating, in paragraph 37 of that judgment, that, \u2018in view of the establishment of and the interpretation of the right to equal treatment enjoyed by citizens of the Union, it is no longer possible to exclude from the scope of Article 39(2) EC a benefit of a financial nature intended to facilitate access to employment in the labour market of a Member State\u2019, the Court held, in paragraph 38 of the same judgment, that \u2018it is \u2026 legitimate for a Member State to grant [a benefit of a financial nature intended to facilitate access to employment in the labour market of a Member State] only after it has been possible to establish a real link between the jobseeker and the labour market of that State.\u2019 Judgment of 4 June 2009, Vatsouras and Koupatantze (C\u201122/08 and C\u201123/08, EU:C:2009:344, paragraphs 38 and 39)."], "id": "03ea598a-66a3-431f-8385-9602a01deec6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["64. With regard to Directive 2004/38, the analogy with the mechanism established by that directive may appear persuasive at first sight because the factual circumstances are the same if viewed from the parent\u2019s perspective: the parent, a third-country national, enjoys a derived right of residence linked to his or her child\u2019s for a period of more than five years. In addition, those two derived rights of residence arise in the context of the free movement of persons, as this is how EU law protects that freedom enjoyed by that Union citizen. (33) In the cases covered by Directive 2004/38 and by Article 21 TFEU, (34) this allows the parent to obtain a right of permanent residence after a period of five years."], "id": "f67c389f-f0b0-4934-90ec-e8555731e442", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Freedom of movement for persons \u2013 Article 45 TFEU \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Right of residence for more than three months \u2013 Article 14(4)(b) \u2013 Jobseekers \u2013 Reasonable period of time to acquaint themselves with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment \u2013 Requirements imposed by the host Member State on the jobseeker during that period \u2013 Conditions governing the right of residence \u2013 Obligation to continue seeking employment and to have a genuine chance of being engaged)"], "id": "38d5b551-0397-44ac-8fee-ef8cafd9bef3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 National of a Member State without an activity residing in the territory of another Member State on the basis of national law \u2013 The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU \u2013 Non-discrimination based on nationality \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 7 \u2013 Conditions for obtaining a right of residence for more than three months \u2013 Article 24 \u2013 Social assistance \u2013 Concept \u2013 Equal treatment \u2013 Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland \u2013 Transition period \u2013 National provision excluding Union citizens with a right of residence for a fixed period under national law from social assistance \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Articles 1, 7 and 24)"], "id": "90cee453-6935-47b0-b29e-6fe39c70d1d1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["50 Article 20(2) TFEU and Articles 21 and 22 TFEU attach a series of rights to the status of citizen of the Union. confers, in particular, on each Union citizen a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the FEU Treaty and the measures adopted for their implementation (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2018, K.A. and Others (Family reunification in Belgium), C\u201182/16, EU:C:2018:308, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "6c13434c-75d3-4d67-b39f-827a62d2dde0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["It is true that a measure such as that provided for in the French Civil Code makes it possible to ensure that is retained and is therefore one of the means by which the authorities of a Member State can guarantee that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the person concerned does not lose that status."], "id": "07724b29-0fad-4508-a0b6-e1d3a2ea2865", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In the judgment in Rottmann, the Court therefore held that, in view of the fundamental nature of the conferred by Article 20 TFEU, the situation of a citizen of the Union who is faced with a decision withdrawing his or her naturalisation adopted by the authorities of one Member State thus placing him or her, after he or she has lost the nationality of another Member State that he or she originally possessed, in a position capable of causing him or her to lose that status and the rights attaching thereto falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the ambit of EU law."], "id": "75848219-2646-4770-bff9-1a9996fd0e2b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["The second question referred should therefore be reworded as asking, in essence, whether the competent national authorities, including as the case may be the national courts, are required to examine the compatibility of the decision revoking the assurance as to the grant of the nationality of a Member State \u2013 and rejecting the application to obtain that nationality \u2013 with the principle of proportionality, having regard to the consequences that that decision has for the position of the person concerned in the light of EU law, namely the permanent loss of , and, accordingly, the compliance of that decision with that principle."], "id": "f307fead-444c-46d5-b524-67823cb24037", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["26 On the date on which the revocation decision at issue in the main proceedings was adopted, that date being decisive for the purpose of examining the merits of the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Administrative Court, Vienna), JY no longer had the status of citizen of the Union. Consequently, unlike the situations that gave rise to the judgments of 2 March 2010, Rottmann (C\u2011135/08, EU:C:2010:104), and of 12 March 2019, Tjebbes and Others (C\u2011221/17, EU:C:2019:189), the loss of was not the corollary of that decision. On the contrary, as a result of the revocation of the assurance as to the grant of Austrian nationality, combined with the refusal of her application to be granted that nationality, JY lost the right, a right acquired on a conditional basis, to obtain citizenship of the Union again, a citizenship which she had previously given up herself."], "id": "d1d34c5c-e132-4897-a338-b58ff83bb604", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["By adopting the Residence Directive, the EU legislature aspired to codify in a single act the earlier secondary law which dealt separately with workers, self-employed persons, students and other inactive persons, in order to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of Union citizens (see recitals 3 and 4). Moving beyond that fragmentary approach, that directive amended or repealed that secondary law, thus conferring a new dimension on the freedom of movement based on (judgment of 7 October 2010, Lassal (C\u2011162/09, EU:C:2010:592, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited))."], "id": "c2de8e4c-8700-4863-bab5-34620633204d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Next, with regard to legitimate expectations, it is clear that, to the extent that the assurance as to the grant of Austrian nationality is conditional upon the renunciation and the loss of the original nationality, that assurance creates legitimate expectations on the part of the person concerned. In particular, it seems clear to me that, in the present case, JY\u2019s legitimate expectation of recovering her falls within the protective scope of EU law. Therefore, in adopting a decision providing an assurance of naturalisation, the Austrian authorities must ensure that a national, such as JY, is not deprived of the status of citizen of the Union \u2013 including where offences have been committed before or after the adoption of that decision \u2013 by facilitating his or her acquisition of the nationality applied for. As is clear from my proposed answer to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling, I take the view that, in exercising those powers, the Austrian authorities must also take into account the specific circumstances of each situation, applying the principle of proportionality."], "id": "97f3bef0-b232-4ca4-935d-9c0c66007187", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Extradition to a third country of a national of a Member State \u2014 Requested person has only obtained the citizenship of the Union after it had transferred its centre of interest to the requested Member State \u2014 Protection of nationals against extradition \u2014 Obligations of the requested State and the Member State of origin of the citizen of the Union \u2014 Objective of preventing the risk of impunity in criminal proceedings)"], "id": "ac3901bb-87f6-48ef-835e-5384d8d807ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Right of Union citizens to move freely within the territories of the Member States \u2013 Article 21 TFEU \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Articles 4 and 5 \u2013 Obligation to carry an identity card or a passport \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code) \u2013 Annex VI \u2013 Crossing the maritime border of a Member State on board a pleasure boat \u2013 Rules on sanctions applicable when moving between Member States without an identity card or passport \u2013 Rules on daily fines in criminal cases \u2013 Calculation of the fine based on the offender\u2019s average monthly income \u2013 Proportionality \u2013 Severity of the sanction in relation to the offence)"], "id": "7b720bc3-a967-4421-9cbe-14bc00fba6fa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Article 20(1) TFEU provides that \u2018every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship\u2019. Article 20 TFEU therefore confers on every individual who is a national of a Member State citizenship of the Union, which is destined to be the fundamental status of all nationals of the Member States. This means that the nationality of a Member State is the prerequisite for enjoyment of EU citizenship, to which all the rights and duties provided for in the FEU Treaty are attached. Citizenship of the Union is thus not only derived but also additional, in so far as it affords supplementary rights to citizens of the Union, such as the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States or the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections. Accordingly, Union citizenship confers on the nationals of the Member States a citizenship \u2018beyond the State\u2019."], "id": "9a3d6880-993a-4215-889b-5dd9b85f63aa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["It is therefore my view that the situation of a person who, after renouncing his or her original nationality for the purpose of satisfying a condition for the grant of nationality imposed by the law of the host Member State, is faced with a decision revoking the assurance as to the grant of nationality taken by the authorities of that State, thus placing him or her in a position in which and the rights attaching thereto are permanently lost, falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the scope of EU law."], "id": "16a6b3e6-b3f4-439d-a83f-2b8169bba35b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["It is indeed true that, in the present case, on the date relevant for the purpose of examining the merits of the action brought in the main proceedings, namely that on which the contested decision was adopted, JY had already become stateless and, as a result, had lost her . It is likewise true that the loss of that status is not a direct result of the contested decision. Indeed, JY relinquished her citizenship of the Republic of Estonia by means of a decision of the government of that Member State."], "id": "b79ffa36-1941-493c-bc45-08d3c4224f40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, as regards the first question, the referring court states at the outset that, having regard to JY\u2019s factual and legal circumstances on the date on which the contested was adopted, circumstances which are decisive for consideration of the merits of the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Administrative Court, Vienna), JY was not a citizen of the Union. Unlike the situation of the interested parties in the cases which gave rise to the judgments in Rottmann and Tjebbes and Others, the loss of the status of citizen of the Union is not, in the present case, the corollary of the contested decision. On the contrary, as a result of the revocation of the assurance as to the grant of nationality, combined with the refusal of her application to be granted Austrian nationality, JY lost the right, a right acquired on a conditional basis, to recover the which she herself had already given up."], "id": "c2b99f21-0448-49a2-a90b-100aad90a69e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["On the other hand, the Treaty provisions on do not confer any autonomous right on third-country nationals. Any rights conferred on third-country nationals are not autonomous rights of those nationals but rights derived from those enjoyed by a Union citizen. The purpose and justification of those derived rights are based on the fact that a refusal to allow them would be such as to interfere, in particular, with freedom of movement of a Union citizen (judgment of 8 May 2018, K.A. and Others(Family reunification in Belgium), C\u201182/16, EU:C:2018:308, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "cacba528-037c-4a39-96eb-dd017aece6b7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["43 Thus, the underlying logic of gradual integration that informs that provision of the FEU Treaty requires that the situation of citizens of the Union, who acquired rights under that provision as a result of having exercised their right to free movement within the European Union and are liable to lose not only entitlement to those rights but also the very status of citizen of the Union, even though they have sought, by becoming naturalised in the host Member State, to become more deeply integrated in the society of that Member State, falls within the scope of the Treaty provisions relating to ."], "id": "f2b5bcee-a4d2-471a-abca-a4310405b467", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, I must point out that it is for the competent national authorities and the national courts to determine whether, when it entails the permanent loss of and the rights attaching thereto, the decision to revoke the assurance as to the grant of nationality and to reject the application to obtain that nationality has due regard to the principle of proportionality so far as concerns the consequences of that decision for the situation of the person concerned and, if relevant, for that of the members of his or her family, from the point of view of EU law. Accordingly, in order for such a decision to be compatible with the principle of proportionality, the relevant national rules must permit an individual examination of the consequences of revoking the assurance from the point of view of EU law."], "id": "b7f76cce-0de4-45de-bb09-36e042dc3d47", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Freedom of movement for persons \u2013 \u2013 Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom \u2013 Transition period \u2013 Article 18 TFEU \u2013 Non-discrimination on the ground of nationality \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 24 \u2013 National right of residence \u2013 Social assistance \u2013 National provision excluding from a subsistence allowance economically inactive Union citizens with a national right of residence \u2013 Equal treatment)"], "id": "9fdf14ac-532f-4327-941e-71e5fecb4503", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Second, such an interpretation, which has the effect of not extending the scope of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, satisfies the requirement that that provision be interpreted strictly and in accordance with the provisions of the FEU Treaty, including those relating to and freedom of movement for workers, as referred to in the judgment in Jobcenter Krefeld."], "id": "91ac4675-7d8d-4f20-a634-e3a0856296bd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["A citizen who has submitted a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative must be placed in a position to be able to understand the reasons for which it was not registered by the Commission, with the result that it is incumbent on the Commission, when it receives such a proposal, to appraise it and also to state the different reasons for any refusal to register it, given the effect of such a refusal on the effective exercise of the right enshrined in the Treaty. This follows from the very nature of this right which, as is pointed out in recital 1 of Regulation No 211/2011, is intended to reinforce and to enhance the democratic functioning of the European Union through the participation of citizens in its democratic life (see judgment of 3 February 2017, Minority SafePack \u2013 one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission, T\u2011646/13, EU:T:2017:59, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e271573d-1061-4710-b901-22fb6f326940", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States \u2013 Article 15 \u2013 End of a Union citizen\u2019s temporary residence in the territory of the host Member State \u2013 Expulsion decision \u2013 Physical departure of that Union citizen from that territory \u2013 Temporal effects of that expulsion decision \u2013 Article 6 \u2013 Possibility for that Union citizen to enjoy a new right of residence on his or her return to that territory)"], "id": "265e6a0f-0cab-460b-ba91-6dce41c4a45b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it is apparent from the legal context as presented by the referring court that, under Paragraph 20(1) of the StbG, the assurance as to the grant of Austrian nationality is subject to the essential condition that the person concerned must, within two years, relinquish his or her citizenship of the Member State of origin. In other words, that person must agree not only to become stateless but to lose his or her ."], "id": "b835495b-a0a5-4482-b986-93e9d98e4831", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["28 In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: \u2018(1) Does the situation of a natural person who, like the appellant in cassation in the main proceedings, has renounced her only nationality of a Member State of the European Union, and thus her , in order to obtain the nationality of another Member State, having been given a guarantee by the other Member State of grant of the nationality applied for, and whose possibility of recovering citizenship of the Union is subsequently eliminated by revocation of that guarantee, fall, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the scope of EU law, such that regard must be had to EU law when revoking the guarantee of grant of citizenship? If the first question is answered in the affirmative, (2) Is it for the competent national authorities, including any national courts, involved in the decision to revoke the guarantee of grant of nationality of the Member States, to establish whether the revocation of the guarantee that prevented the recovery of citizenship of the Union is compatible with the principle of proportionality from the point of view of EU law in terms of its consequences for the situation of the person concerned?\u2019 Consideration of the questions referred"], "id": "931d0aee-8517-442d-926b-8b6000398fb4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Article 21 TFEU \u2014 Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State \u2014 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2014 Article 3(1) and Articles 15, 27, 28, 30 and 31 \u2014 Definition of \u2018beneficiary\u2019 \u2014 Third-country national, the spouse of a Union citizen who has exercised his right to freedom of movement \u2014 Return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national, where he is serving a prison sentence \u2014 Requirements imposed on the host Member State under Directive 2004/38/EC when making a decision to remove such a third-country national)"], "id": "5ff180e2-7849-4dee-ad37-dc1e5a818aac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["This line of reasoning can be applied to BY. He had his residence in Germany at the time that he obtained Romanian citizenship and, by extension, . In these circumstances, it does not matter when a citizen of the EU has obtained such citizenship. Neither is it necessary for an EU citizen actually to cross a border for the application of Article 21 TFEU."], "id": "55812cb2-403d-40af-874c-818fa328b76b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, although the decisions of the Estonian Government and of the Wiener Landesregierung (Government of the Province of Vienna) are admittedly based on the system of acquiring and losing nationality under two different national legal orders, I however share the Commission\u2019s view that the revocation of the assurance as to the naturalisation of a person who is stateless on the date of such revocation must not be considered in isolation but take into account the fact that that person was a national of another Member State and therefore held . Accordingly, at that stage, JY\u2019s loss of her citizenship of the Union should, in my view, be assessed by taking into account not only the decision of the Estonian authorities but also the Austrian procedure of naturalisation taken as a whole."], "id": "ac5ab8db-cc0f-489c-ade6-f9427368150d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["The same applies to the legal concepts linked with or coming within the sphere of the internal market, such as the concept of grounds of \u2018public security\u2019 as an exception to the general rule of freedom of movement. As I said earlier in this Opinion, the guarantees of the rule of law, in particular the obligation to state the reasons on which administrative acts are based, may be restricted in the interest of public security. Although that general assertion is, in principle, correct, it is however necessary to make a few important points. The fact that the Visa Code and the provisions implementing the freedoms of the internal market refer to \u2018public security\u2019 does not mean that they are referring to the same legal concept and that that concept must be interpreted in the same way. In accordance with what has already been said, the context of a provision in the legal order of the Union has a decisive influence on its interpretation."], "id": "7ecabaf5-fdcb-44b5-81e7-f0c0e9f6ceb3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Is it for the competent national authorities, including any national courts, involved in the decision to revoke the guarantee of grant of nationality of the Member States, to establish whether the revocation of the guarantee that prevented the recovery of is compatible with the principle of proportionality from the point of view of EU law in terms of its consequences for the situation of the person concerned?\u2019"], "id": "6d12cb53-87db-41b8-ae83-a31630ab9d64", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["It follows from the foregoing considerations that the legal status of a visa applicant cannot be assimilated to that of a citizen of the Union or a family member of such a citizen who is a third-country national. Any application by analogy of the legal concepts relating to and to the internal market to the visa regime is therefore precluded."], "id": "5cf45865-977c-48ed-b9b2-f5c155dcd6a1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["According to the settled case-law of the Court, is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those nationals who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy within the scope ratione materiae of EU law, the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for. The situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of Union law include those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in particular those involving the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States as conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU."], "id": "4722c082-2085-4229-a09d-93830cc3bd10", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the settled case-law, Article 20 TFEU confers on every individual who is a national of a Member State , which is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (judgment of 8 May 2018, K.A. and Others(Family reunification in Belgium), C\u201182/16, EU:C:2018:308, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "f44f47f1-9b45-4d3b-805e-888dbf2418b3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 13(2) \u2013 Right of residence of family members of a Union citizen \u2013 Marriage between a Union citizen and a third-country national \u2013 Retention of the right of residence by a third-country national who is the victim of domestic violence in the event of the marriage ending \u2013 Obligation to demonstrate the existence of sufficient resources \u2013 Absence of such an obligation in Directive 2003/86/EC \u2013 Validity \u2013 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Articles 20 and 21 \u2013 Equal treatment \u2013 Discrimination based on the nationality of the sponsor)"], "id": "5847baf1-0b23-42b5-9ed4-b1fa741bb68c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In one judgment, the Court also referred to solidarity between producers in order to justify the distribution of burdens and benefits required under rules of EU law, but stopped short of identifying solidarity as a general principle of law, and it has mentioned solidarity in other judgments concerning and social measures, albeit to a limited extent. It did not rely on that concept, at least not expressly, in the judgments on the financial assistance measures adopted following the economic crisis of 2008."], "id": "fd378178-d265-4a57-b0a1-92cf53eae431", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Freedom of movement of persons \u2013 \u2013 Article 21 TFEU \u2013 Freedom of establishment \u2013 Article 49 TFEU \u2013 Equal treatment \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 24(1) \u2013 Legislation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland making the exclusion, in principle in full and automatically, from the bankruptcy estate of pension rights accrued under a pension scheme dependent on prior registration of the pension scheme with the tax authorities \u2013 Application of that requirement in bankruptcy proceedings in respect of an EU citizen who has exercised his right to freedom of movement in order to pursue a self-employed occupation in the United Kingdom on a permanent basis \u2013 That EU citizen\u2019s pension rights accrued under a pension scheme established and tax approved in his home Member State \u2013 Inability to avail of the protection of exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of those pension rights \u2013 Application to those pension rights of a system of exclusion from the bankruptcy estate significantly less advantageous to the bankrupt)"], "id": "ea614f73-1c54-43bd-a4fb-574513eb6dc1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, as the Court has held on numerous occasions and as is apparent from recitals 1 and 2 of Directive 2004/38, confers on each Union citizen a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the Treaties and to the measures adopted for their implementation, freedom of movement for persons being, moreover, one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market enshrined in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 May 2011, McCarthy, C\u2011434/09, EU:C:2011:277, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "b81e6b5a-f78b-4358-a7b2-60bc86d3fb84", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, I would point out that, in accordance with settled case-law, any rights granted to third-country nationals by the provisions of EU law on are not autonomous rights of those nationals, but rights derived from the exercise of the freedom of movement and residence by a Union citizen. Thus, a derived right of residence of a third-country national exists, in principle, only when it is necessary in order to ensure that a Union citizen can effectively exercise his or her rights to move and reside freely in the European Union (see judgment of 13 September 2016, Rend\u00f3n Mar\u00edn (C\u2011165/14, EU:C:2016:675, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "652c8806-e77f-4687-83be-a40f8c65445e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that \u2013 as introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht \u2013 confers on every Union citizen a fundamental and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the Treaties and the measures adopted for their implementation. That right is currently conferred on Union citizens by Article 21(1) TFEU, as reaffirmed in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Residence Directive, which governs inter alia the conditions for exercise of the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, aims to facilitate and strengthen the exercise of that right."], "id": "0470f8ff-3e5a-4927-b211-025e7c43bf97", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["It is my view that such case-law should be used as guidance in a case such as that in the main proceedings. Where a child with is abducted to a non-Member State, to regard the courts of that State as having jurisdiction to rule on parental responsibility in respect of that child is tantamount to cutting any link with EU law, even though that child is the victim of wrongful removal or retention. However, in my opinion, that unlawful action cannot deprive such a child of the genuine enjoyment of the right to have parental responsibility examined in his or her regard by a court of a Member State."], "id": "096833af-769e-4da5-b44d-f40db8c44128", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Article 20(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes and provides that \u2018every person holding the nationality of a Member State\u2019 is to be a citizen of the Union. In accordance with Article 20(2)(a) TFEU, citizens of the Union are to have \u2018the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States\u2019."], "id": "e59435fe-f1a5-4b94-b1da-29b977cf1ea9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the situation of a natural person who, having the nationality of just one Member State, renounces that nationality, and therefore his or her , in order to obtain the nationality of another Member State, in accordance with the decision of the authorities of the latter providing the assurance that that nationality will be granted to him or her, falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the scope of EU law, where that decision is subsequently revoked and his or her application for the grant of the nationality is rejected."], "id": "b4e39b82-7ddf-4837-a50e-da2051c197e3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire d\u2019Auch (Court of Auch, France)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Interpretation and validity of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community \u2013 National of the United Kingdom residing in a Member State of the European Union for more than 15 years and deprived of the right to vote in the United Kingdom \u2013 Removal from the electoral list in the Member State of residence)"], "id": "908d9769-9f14-469a-a4f6-92ba668e3ba9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["37. First of all, it should be pointed out that \u2013 as introduced by the Maastricht Treaty (12) \u2013 confers on every citizen of the Union a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and to the measures adopted to give them effect. That right is now conferred on the citizens of the Union by Article 21(1) TFEU as reaffirmed in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union."], "id": "46022fec-85c1-4945-b238-3036caed128a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["6 Article 20 TFEU provides: \u20181. is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship. 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: (a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; \u2026 These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.\u2019"], "id": "fcbe74ce-7182-435a-836f-88ff3bd89aee", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Judgment in Tjebbes and Others, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited. In his Opinion in Tjebbes and Others (C\u2011221/17, EU:C:2018:572, point 28), Advocate General Mengozzi took the view that the applicants in the main proceedings had not definitively lost their as conferred by Article 20 TFEU, but that they had been placed in a \u2018position capable of causing them to lose that status\u2019, and concluded that the situations at issue in that case fell within the scope of EU law. However, in its judgment, the Court did not examine the applicability of EU law."], "id": "05caddc7-1306-44de-9b7c-f99334ad8b03", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["As I have set out, both JY\u2019s statelessness and her loss of the status of citizen of the Union are the result of the Austrian naturalisation procedure, taken as a whole. I am therefore of the view that the situation of a national of a Member State such as JY, who has renounced her original nationality with the sole aim of satisfying the condition for the assurance of the grant of Austrian nationality laid down in national legislation and, therefore, for the sole purpose of recovering is immaterial when it comes to determining whether the revocation of the assurance as to the grant of the nationality has due regard to the principle of proportionality. Accordingly, such a renunciation cannot be regarded as a relevant factor when examining the circumstances pertaining to the individual situation of the person concerned."], "id": "37dc8118-817d-40a4-a9e1-652f82fec8ac", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["27 However, if a situation such as that of JY falls within EU law, the referring court asks whether the competent national authorities and courts must ascertain, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law, whether the revocation of the assurance as to the grant of the nationality concerned, which prevents from being obtained again, is compatible, from the point of view of EU law, with the principle of proportionality, having regard to the consequences of such a decision on the situation of the person concerned. That court considers that it would be logical, in that case, for such a review of proportionality to be required and asks, in the present case, whether the mere fact that JY has renounced her citizenship of the Union by putting an end herself to the special relationship of solidarity and good faith which united her to Estonia and also the reciprocity of rights and duties with that Member State, which formed the bedrock of the bond of nationality (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 March 2019, Tjebbes and Others (C\u2011221/17, EU:C:2019:189, paragraph 33), is decisive in that regard."], "id": "ecab77c8-4a8c-406f-911e-925d565970df", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Article 20 TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not preclude, in principle, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows that Member State, on public-interest grounds, to revoke the assurance as to the grant of its nationality, even where that revocation decision entails the permanent loss of for the person concerned and makes it impossible for that person to recover that status and the rights attaching thereto, provided that the competent national authorities, including, where appropriate, the national courts, examine whether that decision is compatible with the principle of proportionality having regard to the consequences which it entails for the situation of the person concerned in the light of EU law and, accordingly, whether that decision complies with that principle."], "id": "f18d76e2-fe37-49a8-a8cc-3252ada5d95a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In addition, the French Government considers that JY, having renounced her original Estonian nationality on account of the assurance given by a Member State that nationality of that State would be granted to her, is faced with a decision revoking that assurance which has the effect of keeping her stateless, as characterised by the loss of conferred by Article 20 TFEU and the rights attaching thereto. In such a situation, the Member States are required to comply with EU law in exercising their powers in the sphere of nationality."], "id": "b6f69cc4-0fc2-4971-9d16-c7fff628e923", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["With regard, in the second place, to the written observations submitted by the parties, the Austrian Government concurs with the view of the referring court and states that JY renounced her Estonian nationality, and therefore her , voluntarily. However, JY states that she never intended to renounce her citizenship of the Union as her fundamental status. She merely wanted \u2013 and legitimately expected \u2013 to acquire the nationality of another Member State and, ultimately, involuntarily lost citizenship of the Union. JY submits that, in so far as the revocation of the assurance of the grant of Austrian nationality concerns her rights as a citizen of the Union, the Austrian authorities were obliged to comply with EU law in that regard."], "id": "9f4d83ac-1107-4b12-925a-012697a01d4d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2014 Articles 5, 10 and 20 \u2014 Right of entry to a Member State of a third-country national who is a member of the family of an EU citizen \u2014 Visa exemption \u2014 Family member\u2019s residence card \u2014 Permanent residence card \u2014 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement \u2014 Article 26 \u2014 Obligation imposed on carriers to ensure that passengers hold the travel documents required for entry into the Member State of destination)"], "id": "22232d70-f638-4c64-9330-2fc5e427db7e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Judgment of 8 March 2011 (C\u201134/09, EU:C:2011:124, paragraph 42). In that regard, the situation of Mr Ruiz Zambrano\u2019s children, which was \u2018liable to deprive them of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by their status of citizens of the Union\u2019, and that of Mr Rottmann, which was \u2018liable to lead to the loss of the status conferred by Article 20 TFEU and the rights attaching thereto\u2019 (the judgment in Rottmann, paragraph 42) are comparable in that, in those two situations, had been rendered redundant. See, in that regard, my Opinion in Rend\u00f3n Mar\u00edn and CS (C\u2011165/14 and C\u2011304/14, EU:C:2016:75, points 114 and 115)."], "id": "837408f5-b043-43c1-97ea-b718d345ee65", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In that judgment, it was a general condition for the loss of Netherlands nationality by operation of law, and therefore by the persons concerned, which was examined in the light of EU law. The Court confirmed the principle set out in the earlier case-law. Referring to paragraphs 42 and 45 of the judgment in Rottmann, it held that the situation of citizens of the Union who are nationals of one Member State and who, by losing that nationality, are faced with losing the citizenship of the Union conferred by Article 20 TFEU and the rights attaching thereto falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the ambit of EU law, and that, therefore, the Member States must, when exercising their powers in the sphere of nationality, have due regard to EU law."], "id": "958dd307-7c88-4812-9fe4-446105b112b4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["It must be noted that it is apparent from recitals 1 and 2 of Directive 2004/38 that confers on each Union citizen a primary and individual right to move and to reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the Treaties and the measures adopted to give them effect, freedom of movement for persons being, moreover, one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, as affirmed in Article 45 of the Charter (judgment of 22 June 2021, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others (Preventive measures for removal), C\u2011718/19, EU:C:2021:505, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "60646ab4-e5d2-4158-bb0a-cb11c9aaed9d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 \u2014 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2014 Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State \u2014 Beneficiaries \u2014 Third-country national who is the spouse of a Union citizen who has exercised his freedom of movement and then returned to the Member State of which he is a national where he is serving a prison sentence \u2014 Applicability of Directive 2004/38 to the expulsion of that third-country national \u2014 Scope of Article 15 and of Chapter VI)"], "id": "1214f3f6-9304-46bf-84b5-1b9df570eeb4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["The statelessness imposed by the Austrian system of acquiring nationality means that a national of a Member State who wishes to obtain Austrian nationality, such as JY, is faced with the temporary loss of , as conferred by Article 20 TFEU. However, it can also mean that such a national is subsequently faced with the permanent loss of that status, where \u2013 as in the present case \u2013 the assurance as to naturalisation may be revoked by the Austrian authorities owing to the commission of an offence, thus depriving him or her of all the rights attaching thereto."], "id": "6fda40e8-624c-4bf5-b0f5-83edd31b0ba6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["With regard, in the first place, to the specific features of the present case, the referring court states that the situation at issue in the main proceedings is characterised by the fact that, on the date on which the contested decision was adopted, JY had already renounced her Estonian nationality and, therefore, her . Accordingly, unlike the circumstances which gave rise to the judgments in Rottmann and Tjebbes and Others, the loss of Union citizenship is not the corollary of the contested decision and JY\u2019s situation does not fall within the scope of EU law."], "id": "21408363-1f3c-45c8-9d6a-23061b3326c1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Does the situation of a natural person who, like the appellant in cassation in the main proceedings, has renounced her only nationality of a Member State, and thus her , in order to obtain the nationality of another Member State, having been given a guarantee by the other Member State of grant of the nationality applied for, and whose possibility of recovering citizenship of the Union is subsequently eliminated by revocation of that guarantee, fall, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the scope of EU law, such that regard must be had to EU law when revoking the guarantee of grant of citizenship?"], "id": "a6607db8-2d9c-4f9a-a7a4-561dba91249e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["6 Article 20 TFEU provides: \u20181. is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship. 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: \u2026 (b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. \u2026\u2019"], "id": "a6984d25-9c9d-487f-a3a3-c2228f4712f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["If the first question is answered in the affirmative, the referring court also asks whether the competent national authorities and the national courts having jurisdiction are required to review, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, whether the revocation of the assurance as to the grant of Austrian nationality, which prevents the person concerned from being able to recover her status as a citizen of the Union, is compatible with the principle of proportionality from the perspective of EU law. The referring court considers that such a review of proportionality must be required and asks, in that connection, whether the mere fact that JY has renounced her and relinquished the special relationship of solidarity and good faith between her Member State of origin and its nationals and also the reciprocity of rights and duties, which form the bedrock of the bond of nationality, is decisive."], "id": "eac7d5d8-cf0a-479e-b87c-25bf2eb9d810", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Accordingly, a decision to revoke the assurance as to the grant of nationality, such as the decision of 6 July 2017 of the Wiener Landesregierung (Government of the Province of Vienna, Austria), which entails the permanent loss of by the person concerned in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground of administrative offences related to road safety, specifically offences which do not entail the withdrawal of the individual\u2019s driving licence, is not in compliance with the principle of proportionality under EU law."], "id": "40827a0f-fa12-4452-b03a-a16a7c87c5f1", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["The principle established by the Court in the judgment in Micheletti and Others was confirmed in the judgment in Rottmann. In examining a decision to withdraw naturalisation adopted by the German authorities, the Court also clarified the scope of that principle. Thus, after reiterating the competence of the Member States in the sphere of the acquisition and loss of nationality, the Court made clear that \u2018the fact that a matter falls within the competence of the Member States does not alter the fact that, in situations covered by European Union law, the national rules concerned must have due regard to the latter\u2019. In that connection, it took as a basis settled case-law on the situations in which legislation adopted in a matter falling within the scope of national powers is assessed in the light of EU law. Since such situations fall within the scope of EU law, they must therefore comply with EU law and are subject to review by the Court. cannot be rendered redundant and, therefore, the rights conferred by it cannot be infringed by the adoption of state measures."], "id": "572b9cc5-186f-442d-800c-53a663ba836c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In particular, as the Court has repeatedly held and as is apparent from recitals 1 and 2 of Directive 2004/38, confers on each Union citizen a primary and individual right to move and to reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the Treaties and the measures adopted to give them effect, freedom of movement for persons being, moreover, one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, as affirmed in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 May 2011, McCarthy, C\u2011434/09, EU:C:2011:277, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "e4a5f31d-b399-4e2e-8746-f7a107c0c74a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["Since, in the context of the assurance of naturalisation, Austrian legislation requires, as an essential condition, the renunciation of the nationality of the State of origin, whilst however retaining the power to revoke that assurance, the exercise of such a revocation means that the citizen of the Union is as a matter of course faced with the loss of his or her and that that situation therefore falls within the scope of EU law."], "id": "c75bd4b0-a4bc-444e-90be-5ea6b3dada37", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["However, that is not the case in the area of and the free movement of persons. As regards the right to move and reside freely within the territory of all of the Member States, which Union citizens derive directly from Articles 20(2)(a) and 21(1) TFEU, the Member States\u2019 discretion in relation to immigration cannot adversely affect implementation of the provisions on citizenship of the Union or freedom of movement, even if those provisions concern not only the situation of citizens of the Union but also that of third-country nationals who are members of their families. The contrary would, clearly, not be compatible with the establishment of an internal market, which \u2018implies that the conditions of entry and residence of a Union citizen in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess are the same in all the Member States\u2019."], "id": "b9700bf5-2037-406c-abbe-34f92b1b4352", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States \u2013 Economically inactive Union citizen who has left his Member State of origin to settle in a host Member State for family reunification purposes \u2013 Refusal to affiliate that Union citizen to the social security system of the host Member State and to provide public health care benefits \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Article 7(1)(b) \u2013 Condition requiring \u2018comprehensive sickness cover\u2019 \u2013 Concept of \u2018unreasonable burden\u2019 \u2013 Article 24 \u2013 Right to equal treatment \u2013 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 \u2013 Article 3(1)(a) \u2013 Concept of \u2018sickness benefit\u2019 \u2013 Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) \u2013 Scope \u2013 Genuine link of integration with the host Member State \u2013 Consequences)"], "id": "cf1705b8-f411-46df-8665-f0eaf1e49758", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["As regards Article 20 TFEU, it should be noted that, while establishing , that article merely provides that citizens of the Union are to enjoy the rights conferred in the Treaty and are subject to the duties laid down in the Treaty. It cannot, therefore, in that respect, be applied independently of the specific provisions of the Treaty which govern the rights and the duties of the citizens of the Union, such as, in particular, Article 45 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 December 2004, My, C\u2011293/03, EU:C:2004:821, paragraph 32, and of 31 May 2017, U, C\u2011420/15, EU:C:2017:408, paragraph 17)."], "id": "f2fb3e25-a0a0-417a-9f73-4b09da40cc91", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, as I have explained in point 69 of this Opinion, the situation in which, as in the present case, a national of a Member State is faced with the permanent loss of his or her and, therefore, with the loss of all of the rights conferred by Article 20 TFEU is comparable to that in which the person concerned is faced with the loss of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by that article in that, in both those situations, citizenship of the Union has been rendered redundant."], "id": "a3fad347-2efc-4867-9025-ef7276323844", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court, Belgium)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 \u2013 Articles 20 and 21 TFEU \u2013 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2013 Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State \u2013 Decision to terminate residence on grounds of public policy \u2013 Preventive measures to avoid any risk of absconding during the period allowed for leaving or during the extension of that period \u2013 National provisions identical or similar to those applicable to third-country nationals under Article 7(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC \u2013 Refusal of the Union citizen to comply with a decision terminating residence on grounds of public policy or public security \u2013 Maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal)"], "id": "32d88148-559b-42cd-9a94-87f10fdcbd92", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["To conclude my analysis, I consider it interesting to cite Advocate General Mengozzi who, in his Opinion in Tjebbes and Others, took the view that \u2018in an extreme \u2013 and I hope purely hypothetical \u2013 case, where the legislation of a Member State provides for withdrawal of an individual\u2019s naturalisation entailing loss of as a result of a road traffic offence, the disproportionate nature of that measure would be clear because of the disparity between the low degree of gravity of the offence and the dramatic consequence of losing citizenship of the Union\u2019."], "id": "b71ea26f-1715-4935-9d45-934c7b879610", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Citizenship of the Union", "masked_sentences": ["(Request for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Article 18 TFEU \u2014 Article 21 TFEU \u2014 \u2014 Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States \u2014 Directive 2004/38/EC \u2014 Article 27 \u2014 Criminal offence of child abduction \u2014 Child under the guardianship of a legal guardian \u2014 Parent deprived of part of his or her parental authority transferring the child abroad without the prior consent of the legal guardian)"], "id": "b3537958-f9a3-4fbc-94d6-7aae9f9527b0", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can a passenger nevertheless hold the air carrier liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket if it is to be assumed that his tour organiser, if it were to be held liable, would be financially incapable of actually reimbursing the cost of the ticket and that tour organiser has also not taken any to guarantee reimbursement?\u2019"], "id": "30a0a4ef-cfeb-4551-b118-fe08cc659965", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Similarly, the Commission is not bound by any requirement whatsoever that a matter be referred to it by a Member State prior to the exercise of the powers conferred on it by, on the one hand, Article 15(1) of the Basic Safeguards Regulation, authorising it to adopt protective measures and, on the other hand, Article 20 of that regulation, authorising it to examine the effects of the in force and to amend the detailed rules thereof, or even to revoke them. All of those actions, which the Commission may carry out on its own initiative, follow a logic according to which the Commission has, prior to exercising its powers, evidence relating to the existence or otherwise of a problematic situation for EU producers, the source of that evidence being irrelevant."], "id": "61dc7985-d205-42eb-971d-897803517c3d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, Article 7 of the Basic Safeguards Regulation allows the Commission to adopt, inter alia, provisional in emergency situations. In accordance with Article 4(1) of that regulation, the exercise of that power is exempt from compliance with the requirement that an investigation be carried out prior to the imposition of those measures. However, investigation measures are not excluded. Article 7(3) of the Basic Safeguards Regulation states that the Commission is immediately to conduct whatever investigative measures are still necessary. However, the initiation of such an investigation does not depend on the prior referral to the Commission by a Member State. It would be illogical to impose such a condition when, in particular, it was determined that there was sufficient evidence that an increase in imports had caused or threatened to cause serious injury, in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of the Basic Safeguards Regulation. The same reasoning explains why it is possible for the Commission to initiate an investigation without prior referral by a Member State, where surveillance measures are already in force and make it possible to adduce sufficient evidence to show that the trends in imports might make it necessary to adopt protective measures."], "id": "c8a1f9bb-e025-477e-9dde-2d2c3753ccba", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Safeguard Measures", "masked_sentences": ["The fact of having applied the threshold referred to in Article 18 of the Basic Safeguards Regulation on the basis of each product category taken separately is therefore a reflection of the flexibility recognised in WTO case-law on the application of Article 9 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, as cited by the Commission in its written pleadings, and more specifically the findings of the WTO Panel set out in its report in Dominican Republic \u2013 on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric (WT/DS 415, 416, 417, 418/R, 21 January 2012, paragraphs 7.367 to 7.391), concerning the relevant elements in that connection contained in the report of the WTO Appellate Body in United States \u2013 Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea (WT/DS 202/AB/R, 15 February 2002, paragraph 181)."], "id": "4d2c7709-2496-498f-a216-61b081a1c0c5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, the consequences claimed by the applicant are inherent in the Commission\u2019s procedure for examining the justification of , as provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2006/42. As recalled in paragraph 54 above, it follows from all the provisions of Directive 2006/42, as interpreted by the case-law, that the contested decision requires the Member States to take appropriate measures relating to the placing or retaining of the products at issue on their market. That is an essential element of the safeguard clause procedure laid down in Article 11 of Directive 2006/42, which is intended to ensure uniform application."], "id": "c7d1f9ca-4c3b-4cb3-98c7-3b498271d2fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["The Court concludes from the foregoing that, when adopting , the Commission must, in so far as the circumstances of the case permit, inquire into the negative effects which its decision might have on the economy of the Kingdom of Cambodia, as a beneficiary country of the EBA regime, as well as on the interested parties, and thus finds that that those parties are to be regarded, for the purposes of the admissibility of an action, as individually concerned in so far as they are members of a limited class of natural or legal persons who were identified or identifiable by the Commission and particularly affected by the contested regulation (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 January 1985, Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission, 11/82, EU:C:1985:18, paragraphs 28 and 31, and of 11 February 1999, Antillean Rice Mills and Others v Commission, C\u2011390/95 P, EU:C:1999:66, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "3721bbc3-ad56-48a9-a07d-a86a30605f39", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the fourth place, in so far as concerns the Commission\u2019s objection to the existence of a closed class on account of the fact that any actual or potential importer, established in the territory of the European Union, of products coming from Moldova and falling within the categories covered by the would also be affected by the contested act, it is necessary to identify the body of evidence capable of distinguishing the applicant individually within the meaning of the relevant case-law (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 May 1991, Extramet Industrie v Council, C\u2011358/89, EU:C:1991:214, paragraph 17)."], "id": "31701656-049d-439b-a90a-12ddf3626dd2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["The contested regulation temporarily terminates the preferential access to the EU market enjoyed by the Kingdom of Cambodia as a country listed in Annex IV to the GSP Regulation, which contains the list of countries benefiting from the EBA regime, referred to in Article 1(2)(c) of the GSP Regulation. The imposition of therefore changes both the legal and economic conditions under which the marketing of Indica rice originating in Cambodia takes place on the EU market. Accordingly, the legal position of the Kingdom of Cambodia is directly and substantially affected."], "id": "a84e8dca-6365-4d40-bbae-482c178d4e22", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In so far as its analysis of the data led it to conclude provisionally that the Union steel industry was threatened with serious injury in so far as concerned 23 of the 26 product categories in respect of which an increase in imports was established following the investigation, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1013 of 17 July 2018 imposing provisional with regard to imports of certain steel products (OJ 2018 L 181, p. 39; \u2018the provisional regulation\u2019)."], "id": "48e14e5b-1507-4377-9b53-fd621eec39d5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Thus, in accordance with the requirement recalled in paragraph 97 above, the Commission examined the most appropriate measures, pursuant to Article 16 of the Basic Safeguards Regulation, which lead it to analyse each product category in order to determine the tariff-rate quotas (see, in that connection, Annex III.2 to the contested regulation, read in conjunction with recital 191 of that regulation). In that context, as stated in recitals 190 and 191 of the contested regulation, the Commission took into account the 3% threshold referred to in Article 18 of the Basic Safeguards Regulation. In that way, it avoided making imports originating in developing countries which are members of the WTO subject to in respect of all product categories when, in reality, those imports concerned only a small number of categories. Such an approach thus makes it possible to achieve a result that is proportionate to the objectives pursued, unlike that to which the interpretation of Article 18 of the safeguard regulation, advocated by the applicant, would otherwise have given rise."], "id": "3d2488a1-fddc-4f79-94f6-77aefad4b605", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who has, under Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, as implemented in national law, the right to hold the organiser of his package tour liable, in the event of its cancellation, for repayment of all the sums which he has paid to it under their contract is not entitled to claim reimbursement of the cost of his air ticket from the operating air carrier, on the basis of that regulation, including where the organiser of his package tour is financially incapable of reimbursing the cost of the ticket and has not taken the necessary to ensure such reimbursement."], "id": "b4b19ac2-6355-4583-83b5-a14a1051a798", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the applicant\u2019s first plea is based on the premiss that there is a principle requiring the Commission to treat different third countries equally with regard to the application of . The applicant takes the view that such a principle is apparent from Article 15(5) of the Basic Safeguards Regulation, read in the light of Article 2(2) of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, since the latter provision reflects the most-favoured-nation principle enshrined in Article 1(1) of the GATT 1994. Thus, according to the applicant, safeguard measures should be implemented in line with the principle of non-discrimination."], "id": "aa4d2d6f-c5eb-4bf6-80fd-78e1cd2ba1fd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, given that, as is apparent from that case-law, it is for the Commission to review whether the concerned are justified, by ensuring, inter alia, that the legal and factual reasons for their adoption are well founded, it must be held that the review carried out by the Commission may be based only on circumstances which existed at the time of the adoption of the SWEA decision, and not on subsequent circumstances."], "id": "d2604713-3c61-47f8-9dc4-3717d25c6872", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Thirdly, having regard to the principles set out in paragraphs 63 to 65 above, it is necessary to reject the Commission\u2019s argument that the legal situation of the exporting members of the CRF is not directly affected because the imposed by the contested regulation apply only to importers established in the European Union. Those measures directly affect the exporting members of the CRF, which are limited in their economic activity. The temporary reintroduction of Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia into the EU is tantamount to limiting access to the EU market to exporters who previously enjoyed preferential access to the EU market by means of a special scheme of tariff preferences. Thus, the mere fact that the exporting members of the CRF do not pay the tariffs applicable to imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia into the European Union, since those duties are paid by importers, does not support the conclusion that the contested regulation has no effect on their legal situation."], "id": "f92976b2-1e8d-465f-bdcd-4e4222fa3f02", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Next, the fact that, in the case of a regulation introducing , the factor which made it possible to recognise the hybrid nature of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations, namely the use of the operators\u2019 own figures, which are then distinguished individually, does not preclude the existence of particular attributes peculiar to the applicant or of a factual situation differentiating it from all other persons and distinguishing it individually in the same way as an addressee."], "id": "411a7aaa-c828-4457-affa-3310e711eb6a", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission\u2019s obligation to take into consideration the specific situation of the Kingdom of Cambodia is borne out by the finding that the adoption of on the basis of Article 26 of the GSP Regulation infringes and derogates from the freedom to export resulting from the preferential access to the EU market granted to the Kingdom of Cambodia on the basis of the GSP Regulation."], "id": "45d9f7b8-48f7-4cb2-8f98-9de27cd677f7", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, there is no indication in the wording of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 261/2004, or indeed in the wording of other provisions thereof, that its authors wished to exempt circumstances such as those described in the second question referred, with the result that reimbursement of the cost of the ticket could be demanded from the air carrier in the event that the organiser of the package travel is financially incapable of making the reimbursement under Directive 90/314 and has not taken any . If it is not to provide an overly broad or even contra legem interpretation, the Court cannot introduce into a provision of EU law legal criteria which have not been laid down or even envisaged by the EU legislature."], "id": "7093ddcd-460c-41ab-a912-6ca751853491", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["On 31 January 2019, taking the view that the Union steel industry was threatened with serious injury in respect of 26 categories of steel products, the Commission adopted the contested regulation, which put in place definitive for a period of three years in the form of category-specific tariff-rate quotas the quantitative ceiling of which was set at the average import volume of the countries concerned during the period from 2015 to 2017, increased by 5% to ensure that traditional trade flows are maintained and existing user and importing industry in the Union are sufficiently supported."], "id": "b56009c9-7d0c-491e-8f80-eaa235004081", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["First, as regards the interrelationship between the products in question, the applicant essentially claims, first of all, that apart from two product categories which may be used as raw materials, the categories of steel products cannot, for the most part, be used for manufacture; next, that those products are not interchangeable from a commercial point of view and do not satisfy the same consumer requirements; and, lastly, that since the various categories of steel products are not manufactured with the same equipment, the amount of the investment required in order to ensure that imports of products not subject to replace imports of products subject to such measures means that there is no credible threat of that occurring. According to the applicant, in so far as, contrary to what the Commission contends, the latter failed to take account of those factors, it committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of sound administration."], "id": "b9f969b9-3a74-411f-92d3-f21ddda75fe8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it must, first of all, be noted that the judicial protection afforded to undertakings individually concerned by cannot be affected by the mere fact that the measures are imposed by reference to a State and not to individual undertakings (see, to that effect, judgment of25 September 1997, Shanghai Bicycle v Council, T\u2011170/94, EU:T:1997:134, paragraph 38). Thus, the fact that the safeguard measures imposed by the contested regulation are imposed at national level, and not by reference to the exporters identified, cannot in itself prevent the exporting members of the CRF from obtaining judicial protection."], "id": "78e8ac14-dbdb-403d-9139-97b8b4f5b007", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the first place, as regards the applicant\u2019s arguments alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the Commission did not take account of its upgrade plan presented at the Gustavsberg bowling centre in 2016 or of the positive observations of the independent study in that regard, it must be noted, as submitted by the Commission, that the contested decision concerns the question as to whether or not the taken by the SWEA in 2013 were justified."], "id": "d458ecff-0003-4efe-863d-fd0c42a8a098", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["First, in the light of the global analysis carried out by the Commission in the contested regulation, the applicant takes the view that the only sudden, sharp or significant increase in imports which could be claimed occurred between 2013 and 2016, that is to say, three years prior to the adoption of that regulation. Consequently, the increase in imports found by the Commission is not sufficiently recent to justify the imposition of . It is argued that this assessment of the \u2018recent\u2019 nature is consistent with WTO case-law. In that connection, the applicant observes that it is also apparent from that case-law that (i) that it is not sufficient that imports have increased at a given time in the past and that they have remained stable to justify the imposition of safeguard measures, and (ii) that the analysis of trends during the most recent period must substantiate the sudden and recent nature of the increase in imports, which is not apparent from the qualitative analysis of the trends in imports in the present case."], "id": "6b472972-b6c6-4ab6-94ec-38f1de2abec3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Following that safeguard investigation, the Commission, having concluded that the product concerned was being imported in volumes and at prices that were causing serious difficulties to the EU industry, decided, by adopting its Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019 imposing with regard to imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma (OJ 2019 L 15, p. 5; \u2018the contested regulation\u2019), to temporarily reintroduce Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of the product concerned. The Commission considered that the safeguard measures should be adopted for a period of three years and introduced a progressive reduction in the rate of duty applicable."], "id": "0407642b-220a-40ad-82bc-6ced49b27cf3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["9 Article 38 of the Act of Accession provides: \u2018If there are serious shortcomings or any imminent risks of such shortcomings in Bulgaria or Romania in the transposition, state of implementation, or the application of the framework decisions or any other relevant commitments, instruments of cooperation and decisions relating to mutual recognition in the area of criminal law under Title VI of the EU Treaty and Directives and Regulations relating to mutual recognition in civil matters under Title IV of the EC Treaty, the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years after accession, upon the motivated request of a Member State or on its own initiative and after consulting the Member States, take appropriate measures and specify the conditions and modalities under which these measures are put into effect. These measures may take the form of temporary suspension of the application of relevant provisions and decisions in the relations between Bulgaria or Romania and any other Member State or Member States, without prejudice to the continuation of close judicial cooperation. The safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into force as of the first day of accession unless they provide for a later date. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted when the shortcomings are remedied. They may however be applied beyond the period specified in the first paragraph as long as these shortcomings persist. In response to progress made by the new Member State concerned in rectifying the identified shortcomings, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate after consulting the Member States. The Commission shall inform the Council in good time before revoking the , and it shall take duly into account any observations of the Council in this respect.\u2019"], "id": "f429dbd3-d24b-4896-8887-d6d1a47d260c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["It is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 66 above that, as part of the review which it carries out, the Commission is solely competent to verify whether or not the national , as adopted and subsequently notified by the Kingdom of Sweden pursuant to Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/42, are justified and, consequently, whether those measures may, following that review, be definitively maintained."], "id": "7b83709f-ddd8-49cf-bea1-79d6fdb00fcc", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["233 First, as regards the judgment of 10 April 2003, Commission v Nederlandse Antillen (C\u2011142/00 P, EU:C:2003:217), it should be noted that an appeal was brought in that case before the Court of Justice by the Commission concerning a judgment of the General Court relating to a dispute in which the Netherlands Antilles, an overseas territory linked to the European Community by an association agreement, challenged in respect of imports of rice originating in overseas countries and territories (OCTs). Those measures were of general application and, despite the fact that they affected the rice-milling sector in the Netherlands Antilles and the latter were the source of most imports of that product originating in the OCTs into the Community, they were not specifically aimed at imports from that particular overseas territory but at imports from all OCTs."], "id": "1ed451a6-6372-41bc-8278-fe4f4796c00b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of those essential characteristics of the undervaluation fraud at issue, OLAF requested all those Member States to analyse imports of relevant products coming, inter alia, from China for possible indications of undervalued imports, to carry out appropriate customs checks at customs clearance for the goods concerned in order to check the declared values of those goods and to ensure that they reflected their true market values, and to take appropriate where there was any suspicion of artificially low invoiced prices."], "id": "4e592d1f-d067-44b5-a296-e3fb859bbcfa", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Safeguard Measures", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, as the applicant observes, Article 16 of the Basic Safeguards Regulation uses the expression \u2018such greatly increased quantities\u2019, and Article 9(1)(a) of that regulation refers to a \u2018significant\u2019 increase. By its report of 14 December 1999 in Argentina \u2013 on Imports of Footwear [Argentina \u2013 Footwear (EC)], the WTO Appellate Body pointed out that it was necessary for \u2018the increase in imports [to] have been recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to cause or threaten to cause serious injury\u2019. In recitals 39 and 47 of the contested regulation, the Commission, relying in particular on that case-law, confirmed that the increase in imports in question satisfied those conditions."], "id": "f907a523-26b7-4bd5-8533-1bbcfd415007", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Compliance with such an obligation requires that the decision to impose be based on a perfect match with the \u2018product concerned\u2019. In the present case, the Commission did indeed proceed in such fashion, since the examination of the substantive criteria was carried out in relation to the 26 product categories taken together, which the applicant does not dispute."], "id": "048e6df1-f211-4954-9745-b93075ad552d", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["A further element emphasising the binding nature of the obligation to achieve the objectives set out in the MCV benchmarks, as pointed out by the Swedish Government, concerns the significant legal consequences attached to non-compliance. As noted in recital 7 of the MCV Decision, if the benchmarks are not achieved, the Commission states that it may apply further on the basis of Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession, including the suspension of mutual recognition. Furthermore, the specific legal consequences of a hypothetical infringement, which may arise from the particular MCV regime, do not in themselves prevent recourse to the ordinary enforcement instruments through infringement proceedings in the event of the non-fulfilment by Romania of its obligations under the MCV Decision."], "id": "dca6d8b4-54cc-41fa-981d-cebde9b5b191", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of all those considerations, Article 8(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must, in my view, be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who has, under Directive 90/314, as implemented in national law, the right to hold the organiser of his package tour liable, in the event of its cancellation, for repayment of all the sums which he has paid to it under their contract is not entitled to claim reimbursement of the cost of his air ticket from the operating air carrier, on the basis of that regulation, including where the organiser of his package tour is financially incapable of reimbursing the cost of the ticket and has not taken the necessary to ensure such reimbursement."], "id": "635c89ee-3e11-4f7b-85f3-940fd1ec93a9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["More specifically, the applicant submits that the fact that the Commission found, in the contested regulation, that the Union industry was in a difficult economic situation until 2016 is explained, at least in part, by past material injury caused by past dumping and subsidies against which trade defence measures had been adopted. In that connection, the application stresses that the matter of whether or not anti-dumping and countervailing measures serve different purposes and/or target specific products, as compared to , is irrelevant."], "id": "e52691ab-2804-41a7-ae58-8adc79bd1d3b", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the third place, having regard to the above findings, the applicant\u2019s arguments concerning a disproportionate financial burden resulting from the cannot be upheld. First, the risks which the applicant\u2019s machines pose to the health and safety of humans, as referred to in paragraph 73 above, justify the need to prohibit the placing on the market and the withdrawal from the market of the products at issue, notwithstanding the cost that that might represent for the applicant. Secondly, the distinction between the safeguard measures for existing and new products, the three alternative solutions for withdrawing the products at issue and the fact that, under the first of those solutions, the number of deficiencies to be corrected in order to maintain those products on the market was reduced show, in that regard, that the approach adopted by the SWEA and the Commission was proportionate to the financial burden which the safeguard measures might impose on the applicant."], "id": "daa99a49-9d22-4489-b9df-212a95c714f5", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["According to the Commission, on the one hand, the measures taken in the present case aim at permitting traditional trade flows to come free of additional protection so that there is enough supply and competition on the Union market and, on the other hand, the tariff-rate quota levels are set in such a way as to prevent any trade diversion arising in the context of the Section 232 measures that could negatively affect Union industry. Thus, the above-quota tariff would, in principle, apply only if trade diversion due to the measures adopted by the United States of America were to trigger a change in the situation from threat of serious injury to serious injury. In that regard, the Commission considers that the country-specific tariff-rate quotas set out in Annex IV.1 to the contested regulation were established in a manner which would minimise the impact of the on regular trade coming from Moldova."], "id": "51822a52-53b4-4f66-a831-baf1b1ec59c9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["That recital does not concern the Commission\u2019s power to initiate an investigation, but rather the Member States\u2019 obligation to provide information in order to enable the Commission to fulfil the obligations conferred on it by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, in order to protect the interests of the European Union in the context of the common commercial policy, both as regards the initiation of surveillance of imports of a product originating in a third country, in accordance with Chapter IV of the Basic Safeguards Regulation, and the imposition of in respect of a product imported into the European Union, in accordance with Chapter V of that regulation."], "id": "0285f4eb-758c-46cf-977a-2de275209cfb", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission itself raised the objective of the GSP Regulation as a reason justifying progressive liberalisation of the over the period of three years and thus considered that a progressive reduction in the rate of duty applicable should be sufficient for the EU industry to counteract the deterioration of its economic or financial situation (recitals 81 to 85 of the contested regulation)."], "id": "826c63b9-0b16-4104-974a-13cd4cb3ffc2", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Fourthly, a company whose products are subject to is directly concerned by a regulation introducing such measures because that regulation obliges the customs authorities of the Member States to levy the duties imposed without leaving them any discretion (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 September 1997, Shanghai Bicycle v Council, T\u2011170/94, EU:T:1997:134, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited, and of 19 November 1998, Champion Stationery and Others v Council, T\u2011147/97, EU:T:1998:266, paragraph 31). In the present case, it has already been found, in paragraphs 66 and 68 above, that the contested regulation leaves no discretion to the addressees responsible for its implementation."], "id": "d0dc2d98-6eaa-4c97-812d-a014eb729a40", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["The applicant adds that its interpretation of Article 18 of the Basic Safeguards Regulation is consistent with the requirement to observe parallelism between the scope of a safeguard investigation and the scope of a safeguard measure, as established by the WTO Appellate Body. In the present case, the applicant observes that, since the investigation concerned the 26 product categories taken together, the scope of the should cover the 26 product categories taken together. As the non-application of those measures to developing countries is a constituent element of the scope of the protective measures, that exclusion should also be based on the scope of the investigation, namely the 26 product categories taken together."], "id": "688585c7-d5d9-4959-b1a5-f0531b7cacd4", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the second place, in so far as concerns the analysis, by the Commission, of the figures which led it to find that the applicant is not the sole exporter of the product concerned in Moldova, first, it should be noted that, without having been specifically challenged on that point, the applicant stresses the marginal nature of imports from Moldova in categories of steel products other than categories Nos 13 and 16. Consequently, although the fact of being the biggest exporting producer of the products subject to is not, in itself, such as to distinguish the applicant individually (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 January 2002, Rica Foods v Commission, T\u201147/00, EU:T:2002:7, paragraph 39), it is not irrelevant, inasmuch it forms part of a set of factors constituting a particular situation which distinguishes the applicant, with regard to the measure at issue, from all other economic operators (see, by analogy, judgment of 16 May 1991, Extramet Industrie v Council, C\u2011358/89, EU:C:1991:214, paragraph 17)."], "id": "a3a29f8f-eaa3-4745-95eb-464806901394", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["8 Article 37 of that act reads as follows: \u2018If Bulgaria or Romania has failed to implement commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations, causing a serious breach of the functioning of the internal market, including any commitments in all sectoral policies which concern economic activities with cross-border effect, or an imminent risk of such breach the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years after accession, upon motivated request of a Member State or on its own initiative, take appropriate measures. Measures shall be proportional and priority shall be given to measures which least disturb the functioning of the internal market and, where appropriate, to the application of the existing sectoral safeguard mechanisms. Such shall not be invoked as a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. The safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into force as of the first day of accession unless they provide for a later date. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted when the relevant commitment is implemented. They may however be applied beyond the period specified in the first paragraph as long as the relevant commitments have not been fulfilled. In response to progress made by the new Member State concerned in fulfilling its commitments, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate. The Commission shall inform the Council in good time before revoking the safeguard measures, and it shall take duly into account any observations of the Council in this respect.\u2019"], "id": "355dcc42-dda7-42c9-9c1c-bd62d9586097", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["First of all, it follows from the case-law cited in paragraphs 40 to 42 above that it cannot be ruled out that a regulation imposing , which is legislative in nature and scope, in so far as it applies generally to the economic operators concerned, is liable to be of direct and individual concern to some of those operators, including, in particular, under certain conditions, the producers and exporters of the product in question."], "id": "4e13a9e7-3993-4ab6-9545-3e31c4119504", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the fourth place, it must be stated that, in view of both the precise references to the justifications provided by the Kingdom of Sweden and the detailed risk analysis of the use of the products at issue made by the Commission, the applicant\u2019s arguments concerning the failure, in the contested decision, to state adequate reasons regarding the proportionality of the are unfounded."], "id": "a0272848-415d-449f-bbe1-7ae36e31f35f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Measures shall be proportional and priority shall be given to measures which least disturb the functioning of the internal market and, where appropriate, to the application of the existing sectoral safeguard mechanisms. Such shall not be invoked as a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. The safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into force as of the first day of accession unless they provide for a later date. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted when the relevant commitment is implemented. They may however be applied beyond the period specified in the first paragraph as long as the relevant commitments have not been fulfilled. In response to progress made by the new Member State concerned in fulfilling its commitments, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate. The Commission shall inform the Council in good time before revoking the safeguard measures, and it shall take duly into account any observations of the Council in this respect.\u2019"], "id": "ce0af85b-3663-4143-9076-cfb08a684acd", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Moreover, according to case-law, regulations imposing , although legislative in their nature and scope, in so far as they apply generally to the economic operators concerned, are liable to be of individual concern to certain natural or legal persons by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons (see judgment of 10 April 2003, Commission v Nederlandse Antillen, C\u2011142/00 P, EU:C:2003:217, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited, and order of 30 April 2003, VVG International and Others v Commission, T\u2011155/02, EU:T:2003:125, paragraphs 40 and 41 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 17 January 2002, Rica Foods v Commission, T\u201147/00, EU:T:2002:7, paragraphs 34 and 36). A regulation imposing safeguard measures may therefore, like a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties, be regarded as being of a hybrid nature."], "id": "e87f75f6-86c5-4b8f-9847-b251841782cf", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["First, it should be noted that it follows from the case-law cited in paragraphs 100 and 101 above that an undertaking cannot be considered directly concerned by a regulation imposing solely on account of its capacity as a producer of the product subject to that measure, since the capacity of exporter is essential in that regard. It follows from that case-law that whether certain producers and exporters of the product at issue are directly concerned by a regulation imposing safeguard measures is connected, in particular, with the fact that they are alleged to be responsible for the serious difficulties caused, or likely to be caused, to the European Union industry. A producer that does not export its production to the EU market, but simply sells it on its national market, cannot be for the cause of such difficulties (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 February 2019, Council v Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association, C\u2011465/16 P, EU:C:2019:155, paragraph 74)."], "id": "5867ba7e-29a4-42ce-b0b6-42bc7d6aaede", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["On 20 April 2007, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) sent mutual assistance message 2007/015 to Member States to inform them of the risk, inter alia, of extreme undervaluation of imports of textiles and footwear from China which in most cases were made by \u2018shell companies\u2019, undertakings registered for the sole purpose of giving a fraudulent transaction the appearance of legitimacy and which, upon investigation, were often found not to have a place of business at the address given to customs authorities. OLAF explained that, in most of the cases examined, the declared values were well below 0.50 United States dollars (USD) per kilogram (kg) and even below 0.10 USD per kilogram. In the light of that fraud mechanism (\u2018the undervaluation fraud at issue\u2019), OLAF requested all Member States to monitor their imports of textiles and footwear from, inter alia, China for possible indications of undervalued imports, to carry out appropriate checks at customs clearance for such imports in order to verify the declared customs values to ensure that they reflected true market values, and to take appropriate where there was any suspicion of artificially low invoiced prices."], "id": "e8d11669-9fc1-4f4f-b5a3-3d48cab69559", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["As a preliminary point, it claims that the lawfulness of the decisions made by the Commission concerning compliance with the conditions for imposing under Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on the common rules for imports (OJ 2015 L 83, p. 16; \u2018the Basic Safeguards Regulation\u2019) should be reviewed in the light of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Safeguards as well as related WTO case-law or, at the very least and in the alternative, that those agreements and that case-law may constitute useful interpretative tools in delineating the conditions and requirements that should be met in order to justify the imposition of safeguard measures."], "id": "4e40cc7a-bb78-485f-b5cc-3c4d90029ff3", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Second, the Commission states that the contested regulation is not of a hybrid nature, in the sense that it contains individual decisions personalising the applicant and thus creating a \u2018class\u2019. The Commission observes that, although that nature has been recognised in the case of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations, that recognition is based on specific characteristics of those regulations (namely the individual and personal establishment of the anti-dumping or countervailing duty rate for each trader or exporting producer on the basis of its own individual data alone), which are not found in regulations imposing , the purpose of which is to protect the Union steel market against a surge in imports."], "id": "b3802bf0-27fe-4d83-8cdd-bc46d989dbb6", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Self-evidently it is for importers established in the European Union to apply those measures, given that the acts adopted by the EU institutions are not, as a rule, intended to apply outside the territory of the European Union. Despite that, the entities affected by the contested regulation are liable to be directly concerned by the applied to them. Temporarily reintroducing the Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of the product concerned into the European Union is tantamount to limiting the access of certain entities to the EU market, including the Kingdom of Cambodia, which previously benefited from preferential access to the EU market by means of a special scheme of tariff preferences (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 13 September 2018, Almaz-Antey v Council, T\u2011515/15, not published, EU:T:2018:545, paragraph 65)."], "id": "c2611e95-c3fd-406e-865e-d9b8ea6387e8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the members of the CRF that are exporters of Indica rice originating in Cambodia to the European Union are to be regarded as forming part of a closed class within the meaning of the case-law, since they were expressly named in the contested regulation and participated in the procedure leading to the adoption of that regulation, in which information relating to their business activities was used to impose the against them and for which the consequences of those measures were taken into account for the purpose of setting the Common Customs Tariff duties. Those undertakings are therefore individually concerned by the contested regulation."], "id": "f996fd5a-d307-4c25-823a-5d338f2f7398", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["\u2018Health claims as referred to in Article 13(1)(a) may be made from the date of entry into force of this regulation until the adoption of the list referred to in Article 13(3), under the responsibility of food business operators provided that they comply with this regulation and with existing national provisions applicable to them, and without prejudice to the adoption of as referred to in Article 24.\u2019"], "id": "a48a8c02-22b6-4214-8ceb-f0c6a2fcbda8", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["The applicant asserts that the fact that the Commission conducted an examination of the 26 product categories taken together (i) cannot be justified since those products are not interrelated, and (ii) leads to distortion of the findings on increased imports, threat of serious injury and causality, since the conditions for imposing are not necessarily met category by category."], "id": "fb44e6d2-3dfa-4253-a08a-6e027f2d3c71", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Consequently, since the machines in question do not comply with the EHSRs and present risks to human health and safety, it must be held that the Commission was justified, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42 and without infringing the principle of proportionality, in concluding that the , namely the prohibition of placing on the market and the withdrawal from the market of the products at issue, adopted by the SWEA, were in themselves justified."], "id": "e9883bed-6e90-4657-9a9e-eca809b19402", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Regarding the objectives of the MCV Decision, its recital 4 refers to the shortcomings justifying recourse to the of Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession. Whilst noting the efforts made to complete Romania\u2019s preparation for EU membership, that recital reveals that the Commission identified in its Report of 26 September 2006 \u2018remaining issues\u2019 concerning, in particular, the accountability and efficiency of the judicial system and law enforcement bodies. Further progress was deemed necessary in order to ensure their capacity \u2018to implement and apply the measures adopted to establish the internal market and the area of freedom, security and justice\u2019. After recalling in recital 5 that the measures in Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession could be taken in case of \u2018imminent risks\u2019, the Commission considered such risks to be present. Recital 6 thus explains that the \u2018remaining issues\u2019 concerned with accountability and efficiency of the judicial and law enforcement system warrant the establishment of the MCV in order to assess the progress of Romania in addressing specific benchmarks in the field of judicial reform and the fight against corruption."], "id": "9edd060c-6f51-4b6c-8bce-478f4cbccfe9", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Contrary to the situation that prevailed in the context of the provisional , the contested regulation established specific tariff-rate quotas per country in respect of countries with a significant supplying interest (that is to say, countries with a share of more than 5% of imports for the product category concerned). A \u2018residual\u2019 tariff-rate quota was also established in respect of the other exporting countries to the territory of the European Union. The Commission equally considered that when a supplying country had exhausted its specific tariff-rate quota, it should be allowed to have access to the residual tariff-rate quota, in order to ensure the maintenance of traditional trade flows but also to avoid that, as the case may be, parts of the residual tariff-rate quota would remain unused."], "id": "bb1a01d7-4635-422f-a9ac-51840c448a5e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, it follows from recitals 27 to 42 and 61 to 64, 66 to 68, 76 and 77 of the contested regulation that the Commission used Eurostat figures relating to imports from Cambodia, and thus from Cambodian exporting companies, in absolute terms and in terms of market share, as well as their prices, and explicitly linked the increase in those imports to the serious difficulties caused to the EU industry, which, in the Commission\u2019s view, justified the adoption of . The exporting member of the CRF that was expressly named in the contested regulation and the exporting members of the CRF identified by the Commission and concerned by the sampling and investigation procedure are thus individually concerned by the contested regulation given that the safeguard measures were imposed on the basis of information relating to their business activities."], "id": "f79ecdda-051f-4c8f-be2b-e19b690c0b3e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Where a decision affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of the group, those persons might be individually concerned by that measure inasmuch as they form part of a limited class of traders and that that can be the case particularly when the decision alters rights acquired by those persons prior to its adoption (see judgment of 27 February 2014, Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission, C\u2011132/12 P,EU:C:2014:100, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited). In the present case, the Kingdom of Cambodia is part of a closed class, in so far as it is a beneficiary country of the EBA regime, identified in the contested regulation, which played an active part in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested regulation, and in respect of which the consequences of the were taken into account for the purpose of setting the Common Customs Tariff duties."], "id": "8535d2ab-3247-4fee-b970-8bc8ec31257c", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In that regard, it should be noted that acts imposing are liable to be of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons who can demonstrate that they have been identified in the acts of the Commission or concerned by the preparatory investigations (see, by analogy, judgments of 21 February 1984, Allied Corporation and Others v Commission, 239/82 and 275/82, EU:C:1984:68, paragraphs 10 to 12; see, also, judgments of 28 February 2019, Council v Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association, C\u2011465/16 P, EU:C:2019:155, paragraphs 73 and 79 and the case-law cited, and of 13 September 2013, Huvis v Council, T\u2011536/08, not published, EU:T:2013:432, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited)."], "id": "310dae7b-8712-4f03-94e4-9aeb90cb4c4e", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["These measures may take the form of temporary suspension of the application of relevant provisions and decisions in the relations between Bulgaria or Romania and any other Member State or Member States, without prejudice to the continuation of close judicial cooperation. The safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into force as of the first day of accession unless they provide for a later date. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted when the shortcomings are remedied. They may however be applied beyond the period specified in the first paragraph as long as these shortcomings persist. In response to progress made by the new Member State concerned in rectifying the identified shortcomings, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate after consulting the Member States. The Commission shall inform the Council in good time before revoking the , and it shall take duly into account any observations of the Council in this respect.\u2019"], "id": "a5d5236e-8519-4239-98c2-4792e789e326", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["In the present case, the contested regulation leaves no discretion to the competent authorities of the Member State in the implementation of (see, by analogy, judgments of 3 December 2020, Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Distillerie Bonollo and Others, C\u2011461/18 P, EU:C:2020:979, paragraph 59, and of 12 December 2014, Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Conseil, T\u2011643/11, EU:T:2014:1076, paragraph 28 (not published)), since the competent authorities are required to levy an additional 25% duty once the tariff-rate quotas have been exhausted (see Articles 49 to 54 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558) and Articles 1 and 3 of the contested regulation)."], "id": "973ef34b-33e8-4c8e-a575-1ae9c202f146", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["Since the contested regulation imposes of general application, it must be held that, as the Commission rightly submits, any person prepared and able to export the product concerned to the European Union may have that regulation applied to it. However, that does not mean that, in some circumstances, certain natural or legal persons cannot be individually concerned by that regulation and, as such, fall within a defined class."], "id": "01ab6e71-d53e-4f4b-841b-5d1c0dfaa6ba", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["By relying on WTO case-law, which emphasises the importance of intermediate trends in reaching the conclusion that imports increased within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, the applicant submits that, where there are found to be mixed trends between different product categories comprising a single product concerned, there is nothing to support the conclusion that imports of the single product concerned increased and that are legally justified. In that context, in the light of the specific features of the present case, the applicant disputes the relevance of the Commission\u2019s claims that WTO case-law contradicts the applicant\u2019s position."], "id": "1d4ad30c-431a-448b-98c4-3d0a2fc04b70", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguard measures", "masked_sentences": ["The Commission\u2019s argument that the legal situation of the Kingdom of Cambodia is not directly affected, given that the introduced by the contested regulation apply only to importers established in the European Union, must also be rejected. While it is true that the contested regulation lays down measures that apply primarily to those importers, those measures directly affect the Cambodian State, whose economic activity is limited by the application of those measures to it, as stated in paragraphs 57, 59 and 61 above."], "id": "d7d648b8-e6a0-42d1-aaf3-06df7c43e63f", "sub_label": "CJEU_Terminology"}