ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The principle that a true and fair view must be given, set out in Article 2(3) to (5) of Fourth Directive 78/660 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, does not permit the principle of valuation of assets on the basis of their acquisition price or their production cost, contained in Article 32 of that directive, to be departed from in favour of a valuation on the basis of their real value, where the acquisition price or the production cost of those assets is manifestly lower than their real value.

Under Article 32 of that directive, the true and fair view which the annual accounts of a company must give is based on a valuation of the assets not on the basis of their real value, but on the basis of their historical cost.

Although it is true that, under Article 2(5) of that directive, it is possible that, in exceptional cases, Article 32 must be departed from where the use of that method would give a distorted view of the companies’ assets, financial position and profit or loss, however, the undervaluation of assets in company accounts cannot, in itself, be considered to be an exceptional case. The possibility that certain assets would be undervalued in company accounts where their acquisition value is lower than their real value is merely the necessary corollary of the choice made by the EU legislature, in Article 32 of that directive, to opt for a valuation method based not on the real value of the assets but on their historical cost.

Furthermore, the undervaluation of certain assets in a company’s accounts, is consistent with the principle of making valuations on a prudent basis laid down in Article 31(1)(c) of that directive. In particular, the valuation of such assets at their real value would reveal a capital gain in the company accounts contrary to Article 31(1)(c)(aa) of that directive, according to which only profits made at the balance sheet date may be included.

(see paras 35, 37-40, 42, operative part)
The principle of equal treatment must be interpreted as not precluding a contracting authority from asking a candidate, after the deadline for applying to take part in a tendering procedure, to provide documents describing that candidate’s situation — such as its published balance sheet — which can be objectively shown to pre-date that deadline, so long as it was not expressly laid down in the contract documents that, unless such documents were provided, the application would be rejected. That request must not unduly favour or disadvantage the candidate or candidates to which it is addressed.

Such a request for clarification of a tender must, as a general rule, be sent in an equivalent manner to all tenderers in the same situation, must relate to all sections of the tender which require clarification, and may not lead to the submission, by a tenderer, of what would appear in reality to be a new tender.

(see paras 34-38, 42, operative part)
A statutory guarantee measure, which involves the obligation for State authorities, inter alia regional ones, to intervene in the event of insolvency or liquidation of the credit institution in question and according to which the creditors of the credit institutions can exercise a direct right against the public authority acting as guarantor in a situation where the credit institution is in liquidation or insolvent and the assets of that institution do not suffice to satisfy them, was not entered into on normal market conditions, given its characteristics, and could not be taken into account when assessing the conduct of the national authorities in the light of the criteria of the private investor in the market economy.

The market price is the highest price which a private investor acting under normal competitive conditions is ready to pay for a company in the situation it is in. For the purposes of checking the market price, the national authorities may take into consideration, in particular, the form of the transfer of company, for example public tendering, deemed to ensure that a sale takes place under market conditions or any expert’s report prepared at the time of the transfer. Thus, where a public authority proceeds to sell an undertaking belonging to it by way of an open, transparent and unconditional tender procedure, it can be presumed that the market price corresponds to the highest offer, provided that it is established, first, that that offer is binding and credible and, secondly, that the consideration of economic factors other than the price is not justified. In such circumstances, the Commission is not obliged to resort to other methods in order to check the market price, such as independent studies. In addition, the highest bid submitted in a tender procedure which is unlawful on account of the presence of unlawful conditions can nevertheless correspond to the market price where the deficiencies of the conditions of the call for tenders did not affect the amount of that bid by pushing it lower.

Moreover, the private market-economy vendor will opt, in principle, for the highest offer, where that offer is binding and credible, regardless of the reasons which led the potential buyer to submit that offer. From the perspective of a private vendor, the reasons which lead a certain bidder to submit an offer of a certain amount are not decisive. Where an undertaking is bought at the highest price which a private investor acting under normal competitive conditions was ready to pay for that company in the situation it was in, that company is valued in every respect at the market price and the acquirer cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage in relation to other market operators.

(see paras 92-96, 99, 114, 117)
Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as not precluding the holder of a basic patent and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product consisting of a combination of several active ingredients who has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that combination of active ingredients, which is protected by that patent within the meaning of Article 3(a) of that regulation, from also obtaining a supplementary protection certificate for one of those active ingredients which is also protected as such, individually, by that patent.

It is possible, in principle, on the basis of a patent which protects several different products, to obtain several supplementary protection certificates in relation to each of those different products, provided, inter alia, that each of those products is protected as such by that basic patent within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(b) and (c) of that regulation, and is contained in a medicinal product with a marketing authorisation.

(see paras 30, 41, operative part)
It is clear from the wording of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark that Article 42(2) applies to earlier Community trade marks, while Article 42(3) applies to earlier national trade marks.

Those two provisions do not distinguish national trade marks from trade marks which are the subject of an international registration. However, the ‘earlier national trade marks’ mentioned in Article 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be understood as being trade marks which have effect in a Member State, regardless of whether they have been registered nationally or internationally.

Article 42(3) states that the rules laid down therein are to apply to the ‘earlier national trade marks’ referred to in Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, but makes no distinction between the four categories of ‘earlier trade marks’ listed in that latter provision, which include trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in a Member State.

It follows that Article 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 is intended only to apply the requirement under Article 42(2) of that regulation — that an earlier Community trade mark must have been used within the Community — to earlier national trade marks, in respect of which it is stated that use is required in the territory of a Member State.

Accordingly, Article 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 may be applied to an earlier international trade mark on which opposition proceedings are based.

(see paras 35-39)
Where an action is declared admissible because the plea of inadmissibility is rejected or where a decision on that plea is reserved for the final judgment, there must be an exchange of arguments on the substance of the application at a subsequent stage. It follows from Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 91 thereof, that further examination of the substance can relate only to the part of the action covered by the plea of inadmissibility, in so far as the defendant failed to lodge an additional defence within the period of one month laid down by that Article 40.

Even if a plea of inadmissibility concerning only part of the action is well founded, it cannot lead to dismissal of that action in its entirety and there can therefore be no justification for the defendant’s failure to submit its defence arguments relating to the part of the action not covered by the plea of inadmissibility within the period laid down in Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure.

Therefore, if the defendant takes the view that only part of the action is inadmissible, it must either challenge the admissibility of that part of the action in its defence or, within the period set for responding to the application, raise a plea of partial inadmissibility and submit a statement as to the substance in respect of the part of the action which is not covered by that plea of inadmissibility, failing which the defendant will be precluded from raising that matter.

(see paras 25-28)
Article 71 of that regulation provides, in relation to matters governed by specialised conventions, for the application of those conventions. However, that article cannot have a purport that conflicts with the principles underlying the legislation of which it is a part. Accordingly, that article cannot be interpreted as meaning that, in a field covered by the regulation, a specialised convention may lead to results which are less favourable for achieving sound operation of the internal market than those resulting from the provisions of that regulation.

Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as precluding an international convention from being interpreted in a manner which fails to ensure, under conditions at least as favourable as those provided for by that regulation, that the underlying objectives and principles of that regulation are observed.

Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road according to which an action for a negative declaration or a negative declaratory judgment in one Member State does not have the same cause of action as an action for indemnity between the same parties in another Member State.

Such an interpretation would not guarantee, under conditions at least as favourable as those laid down in Regulation No 44/2001, either observance of the aim of minimising the risk of concurrent proceedings which is one of the objectives and principles which underlie judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union, or the principles of free movement of judgments and mutual trust in the administration of justice which underlie Regulation No 44/2001.

(see paras 44, 47-49, operative part 2)
Article 23 of Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national system of penalties under which, in the event of failure on the part of the creditor to comply with its obligation, prior to conclusion of an agreement, to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness by consulting the relevant database, that creditor forfeits its entitlement to contractual interest but is automatically entitled to interest at the statutory rate, payable from the date of delivery of a court decision ordering that borrower to pay the outstanding sums, which is further increased by five percentage points if, on expiry of a period of two months following that decision, the borrower has not repaid his debt in full, where the referring court finds that — in a situation in which the outstanding amount of the principal of the loan is immediately payable as a result of the borrower’s default — the amounts which the creditor is in fact likely to receive following the application of the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest are not significantly lower than those which it could have received had it complied with its obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness.

(see para. 55, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Import tax — National legislation allowing for tax payments to be deferred for certain categories of taxable persons and making the exercise of the right conditional on obtaining a certificate that is not required under Directive 2006/112 — Aim of ensuring that tax is collected in full — Lawfulness — Condition — Compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality — Determination by the national court (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 211) (see paras 24-27, 29-31, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94(c)) (see paras 35-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) — Interpretation of Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 26(2), 28, 30 and 107 TFEU — Right of Member States to authorise deferment of VAT on importation — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to impose a condition for obtaining a payment deferment certificate, not provided for under the directive — Later legislative amendments exempting only certain taxable persons from payment of VAT on importation — Discrimination — Breach of the prohibition on import duties.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of legislative rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which make the deferred payment of value added tax due on imported goods conditional on obtaining a certificate that is not required under the wording of that directive, provided that the conditions for obtaining such a certificate comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality, which it is for the national court to ascertain.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Energy — Energy performance of buildings — Directive 2002/91 — Obligation to issue a certificate regarding energy performance to the purchaser or tenant of a building — Certificate established by an expert — National legislation which provides for derogations for which the directive does not provide — Failure to fulfil obligations (European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/91, Arts 7(1) and (2), 10 and 15(1), and 2010/31, Art. 29) (see paras 26, 27, operative part)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/91, Arts 9, 15(1), and 2010/31, Art. 29) (see para. 28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to lay down an obligation to present, when buildings are sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate, in accordance with Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, and in having failed to notify the European Commission of the measures transposing Article 9 of Directive 2002/91, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Greece v Commission

(Case C‑547/12 P)

‛Appeal — EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of certain Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF — Amounts which are recoverable from the Hellenic Republic following failure to recover within the period prescribed — Distortion of evidence’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 12)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds of judgment vitiated by a breach of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (see para. 14)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T‑158/09 Greece v Commission by which the General Court partially rejected an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in certain cases of irregularity by operators.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Greece v Commission

(Case C‑547/12 P)

‛Appeal — EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of certain Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF — Amounts which are recoverable from the Hellenic Republic following failure to recover within the period prescribed — Distortion of evidence’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 12)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds of judgment vitiated by a breach of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (see para. 14)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T‑158/09 Greece v Commission by which the General Court partially rejected an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in certain cases of irregularity by operators.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
In the field of State aid, the applicability of the private investor test to an intervention by a Member State in favour of an undertaking of which it is a shareholder depends, not on the way in which the advantage was conferred, but on the classification of the intervention as a decision adopted by a shareholder of the undertaking in question. Furthermore, that test is one of the factors which the Commission is required to take into account for the purposes of establishing the existence of aid and is therefore not an exception that applies only if a Member State so requests, where the constituent elements of State aid incompatible with the common market referred to in Article 87(1) EC have been found to be present.

Consequently, where it appears that the private investor test may be applicable, the Commission is under a duty to ask the Member State concerned to provide it with all relevant information enabling it to determine whether the conditions governing the applicability and the application of that test are met.

The application of those principles cannot be compromised merely because, in a specific case, what is at issue is the applicability of the private investor test to an amendment to the conditions for the redemption of securities issued by the undertaking concerned and acquired by a Member State in return for State aid.

(see paras 30-34)
Case C‑512/12

Octapharma France SAS

v

Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM)

and

Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛Approximation of laws — Directive 2001/83/EC — Directive 2002/98/EC — Scope — Labile blood product — Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process — Simultaneous or exclusive application of the directives — Option for a Member State to provide for a more rigorous regime for plasma than for medicinal products’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 13 March 2014

Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Blood products — Directives 2001/83 et 2002/98 — Scope — Plasma from whole blood prepared by a method involving an industrial process which is intended for transfusions — Application of the Directive 2002/98 for the collection and testing of that plasma — Application of the Directive 2001/83 for the processing, storage and distribution of that plasma — Condition (European Parliament and Council Directives 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, Arts 1(2), and 109, and 2002/98) Public health — Blood products — Directive 2002/98 — Plasma from whole blood prepared by a method involving an industrial process which is intended for transfusions — Option for a Member State to provide for a more rigorous regime for plasma than for medicinal products only for its collection and testing (Art. 168 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/98, Art. 4(2))