option: Art 53 (1) Codice del Consumo of (Decreto legislativo 6 settembre , 12 Nordhausen Scholes, ‘Information Requirements’, 13 Other. (Consumer Protection Statute); Decree (Decreto) No. of of 26 May , Decreto Único del Sector Comercio, Industria y Turismo. DECRETO EJECUTIVO No DE Documents · Menkes No Sk III PPG No. GSIS Office Rules and RegulationsDocuments.

Author: Nikorisar Maujind
Country: Burkina Faso
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Music
Published (Last): 9 May 2011
Pages: 263
PDF File Size: 8.90 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.28 Mb
ISBN: 690-6-54435-802-8
Downloads: 27520
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Samurr

SpA v Comune di Bari. OJ C OJ C8. OJ C1. Other parties to the proceedings: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. Pleas in law and main arguments.

The first ground of this appeal alleges that no reasons were given for deeming the action before the General Court inadmissible; therefore, paragraph 58 of the order under appeal breaches the general principle that there is a duty to state the reasons on which measures are based and, more specifically, infringes Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The second ground raised by the appellant alleges that there has not been a proper, exhaustive interpretation of Article 87 1 EC now Article 1 TFEU.

It is also alleged that Article 87 1 EC has been infringed in that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, as 22 undertakings have been declared exempt from recovery of the aid granted to them on the grounds that they have provided comprehensive reasons for that grant, whereas the appellant has been deemed not to have provided comprehensive reasons for its grant.

EUR-Lex – CFULL – EN – EUR-Lex

In further support of its allegations of infringement of Article 87 1 EC, another part of the appeal also states that the order under appeal does not provide any reasons for finding that the aid granted to the appellant had an effect on intra-Community trade.

First the Commission and then the General Court found that the relief in question was unlawful, citing the distortion of intra-Community trade as an element inherent in granting aid to undertakings in the fishing industry, without carrying out any kind of examination of the relevant market or providing any statement of reasons for that finding. In particular, the standard of living in Chioggia is extremely low, with extraordinary levels of underemployment.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Germany lodged on 3 April — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig. Parties to the main proceedings. European Commission represented by: The applicant claims that the Court should: The provisions governing losses of non-resident companies are now contained in Part 5 of the Corporation Tax Act Under the United Kingdom legislation now in force, a group company may obtain a tax credit for the losses of a non-resident group member only if the latter has no possibility of relief in its State of residence.

That condition is for all practical purposes impossible to meet. Secondly, the new rules on group relief for foreign losses apply only to losses suffered after 1 Aprilthe date of entry into force of those rules. That temporal limitation that is to say, the exclusion of relief under the legislation for losses suffered before that date is contrary to the freedom of establishment.

Italian Republic, European Commission. However, even though the decision at issue in the present case lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to find any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.

According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in devreto form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of 2288-13 such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States.

With regard to the breach of Article 48 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the appellant submits that, in paragraph 26 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in holding that it was decrsto until the stage of the hearing that the present appellant stated that the mark applied for had been registered in Poland since Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services under Article 4 3 TEU, Article TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?

Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector? Coop, Commercianti Indipendenti Associati Soc.

Coop, Conad del Tirreno Soc. Coop, Conad Adriatico Soc. Coop, Conad Sicilia Soc.

Por una República Dominicana Laica. Argelia Tejada Yangüela : 11/12/13

Coop, Sicilconad Mercurio Soc. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio Italy lodged on 15 April — Confederazione generale dell’industria italiana Confindustria and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico. Confederazione generale dell’industria italiana Confindustria and Others. 2228-13 San Pedro and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

Since they have not been authorised, the illegal landfills do not comply with the abovementioned provisions. The proposed penalty daily penalty payment and lump sum is proportionate to the gravity and duration of the infringement, taking account, inter alia, of the need to ensure that the penalty acts as an effective deterrent.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, may a national court — specifically, this referring court — hold that the ruling made regarding the events under consideration … is ineffective in that it has enabled a situation which is contrary to Community law on public procurement to persist and, therefore, is it possible to enforce a final judgment which is contrary to Community 22-813 Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules allowing undertakings only to lodge a claim against the Member State for recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services which are not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the net costs amount to an unreasonable burden for the undertakings?

If question 2 is answered in the negative, may the Member State decide that there is no unreasonable burden associated with the provision of additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the undertaking as a whole has achieved profits from the provision of all those services where that undertaking has a universal service obligation, including the provision of services which the undertaking also would have provided without having the universal service obligation?

Does it affect the answers to questions if an additional mandatory service is required to be provided in Greenland which, under Annex II to the TFEU, is an overseas country or territory, when the Danish authorities impose an obligation on an undertaking established in Denmark and the undertaking has no other activities in Greenland? Of what significance are Article 1Article 3 TFEU and Commission Decision of 20 December on the application of Article 2 TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest for the answers to questions ?

Of what significance is the principle of minimum distortion of competition in, inter alia, Article 1 2Article 3 2 and recitals 41823 and 26 in the preamble to and Part B of Annex IV to the Universal Service Directive for the answers to questions dexreto If the provisions of the Universal Service Directive preclude national schemes as referred to in questions 1, 2 and 4, do those provisions or deceto have direct effect?

On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of Articles 70, 71 and 72 of the [Italian] Criminal Procedure Code in so far as they require criminal proceedings decrsto be decretl indefinitely and, in addition, regular expert assessments to be carried out in respect of the defendant, once it edcreto been ascertained that that defendant is incapable of 2228-13 part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition which is irreversible and unlikely to improve?

On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of point 3 of the 2288-13 paragraph of Article of decrsto Criminal Code in so far as it requires the limitation period to be prolonged indefinitely extended on a six-month basis under Article 72 of that Code in the event that a defendant is incapable of taking part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition 228-1 is irreversible and unlikely to improve?

Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc represented dedreto Grounds of appeal and main arguments. Grounds in law and main arguments. Appeal brought on 29 April by GE. Metropolitan SpA, formerly Metropolitan Srl represented by: Principessa in liquidation represented by: Albergo Saturnia Internazionale Spa represented by: Savoia e Jolanda Srl represented by: Biasutti Hotels srl, formerly Hotels Biasutti Snc represented by: Appeal brought on 29 April by Ge.

Rialto Inn Srl represented decretk Bonvecchiati Srl represented by: Is the imputability — required for purposes of classification as State aid within the meaning of Articles TFEU and TFEU — to the public authorities of a guarantee provided secreto a public undertaking necessarily precluded by the fact that that guarantee, as in the present case, was provided decretk the sole director of the public undertaking who, while he had the power to do so dedreto civil law, acted on his own authority, deliberately kept the provision of the guarantee secret and ignored the requirements under the articles of association of the public undertaking by failing dfcreto seek the approval of the Raad van Commissarissen Council of Commissionersand where, furthermore, it must be assumed that the public body concerned in this case, the Gemeente Municipality did not 28-13 the guarantee to be provided?

If the circumstances described do not necessarily preclude imputability to the public authorities, are those circumstances then irrelevant for the purpose of answering the question as to whether the provision of the guarantee may be imputed to the public authorities, or should the court consider the matter in the light of the other indicators which argue 28-13 or against imputability to the public authorities?

Appeal brought on 2 May 282-13 Manutencoop Soc. On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court 2228-13 that judgment, when aid dedreto being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, decreyo, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 1 TFEU are met.

Consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the information necessary to show that the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic reversed the burden of proof, requiring the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States.

The Commission takes the view that Netherlands employment law does not establish sufficiently clearly that, if female workers returning after the end of the period of maternity leave are confronted with less favourable employment conditions, this is contrary to the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood.


EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

In its view, that prohibition is not established sufficiently clearly by the mere fact that an employer who unilaterally alters the duties and employment conditions agreed in the employment contract fails to fulfil his obligations. The Commission regards as insufficient the argument that, when a legal right to leave is recognised, that automatically implies that that any less favourable treatment is unlawful. Equally, the possibility of bringing an action on the basis of the general prohibition of discrimination and the principle of sound employer practice, which are contained in the Burgerlijk Wetboek Civil Codedoes not amount to a sufficiently clear and precise transposition of those provisions of the Directive.

Those general principles of Netherlands law do not constitute sufficiently clear transposition of the provisions of the Directive. That state of affairs does not fulfil the requirements relating to transparency and legal certainty laid down by the Court of Justice for the transposition of a directive in the national legal order.

Is the import levy described in Article 21 5 of the Decree [of the Flanders Region] of 23 January on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution, which is imposed only on the importation from the other Member States of surpluses of manure derived both from livestock manure and from other manure, irrespective of whether these are further processed or marketed within the territory, and whereby the levy on those imported surpluses of manure is imposed on the importer, whereas in the case of surpluses of manure produced domestically the levy is imposed on the producer, to be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, within the terms of Article 30 TFEU, even though the Member State from which the surpluses of manure are exported itself provides for a reduction of the levy on the exportation of those surpluses of manure to other Member States?

Other party to the proceedings: Uphold the application made by the appellant at first instance.


In its presentation of the facts, the General Court suppressed the fact that the chairperson of the Committee on Petitions informed the appellant without giving further reasons that, although his petition was admissible, the Committee on Petitions could not examine its substance.

Subsequently the General Court assumed — thereby distorting the facts — that the deccreto had been examined. The General Court misrepresented the scope of protection of the fundamental right of petition by unlawfully presuming that it was limited to the examination of the admissibility of a petition. The scope of protection also however encompasses the right to a substantive examination of the petition and deceto a decision on the substance, if the petition is admissible right to have case examined.

It instead substituted its own reasoning for the deficient xecreto given for the failure to deal with the petition.

The General Court failed to take due account of the fact that the appellant was denied the possibility of presenting his case to the Committee on Petitions 22-13 an undistorted way. Kingdom of Spain represented by: This provision is not a legal basis for applying financial corrections by extrapolation in the event fecreto systematic irregularities, since this power recreto not been conferred on the Commission. Error of law in the review of the reliability, consistency, relevance and appropriateness of the extrapolation applied by the Commission.

OJ L decrsto, p. In connection with the foregoing questions, is it open to a court such as the referring court to refrain from applying legislation such as the legislation at issue which does not permit a national court to: Given that decretoo exclusion laid down in Article 45 4 TFEU does not appear to apply to the present case [which concerns the appointment of a national of another Member State of the European Union as President of a Port Authority, a legal entity which can be classed as a body governed by public law] in that it relates to.

Alternatively, may the holding of the office of President of an Italian Port Authority by a national of another Member State of the European Union be regarded as falling within the scope of the decret of establishment laid down in Article 49 et seq. TFEU and, if so, does the prohibition laid down in national defreto on non-Italian nationals holding that office constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, or would such a finding be precluded by Article 51 TFEU?

Rousse Industry AD represented by: First ground of appeal: In the grounds for its judgment the General Court did not address the main questions put to the parties by means of measures of organisation of procedure regarding the facts or the views of the parties in that regard.

The above constitutes a serious procedural error, which falls within the scope of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the 282-13 Court was required to address all of the claims, complaints and arguments before it.

Second ground of appeal: Infringement of European Union law by the General Court. The General Court delivered its judgment in infringement of Article 1 TFEU, since it wrongly assumed that the aid was incompatible with the internal market and infringed competition, and that the fact that the debt was not recovered by the State amounted to an advantage for the company in question.

Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno. Is the principle of VAT neutrality breached when the Member State decrto to collect VAT which has already been settled under the reverse charge mechanism through self-invoicing and simultaneous entry in the sales and purchases register?

Back to top