ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Financial assistance unduly paid following negligence by the national authorities

(Art. 10 EC)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Financial assistance unduly paid

Summary

1. The principle of legal certainly requires that Community rules enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which are imposed on them. Individuals must be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and take steps accordingly. That imperative of legal certainty must be observed all the more strictly in the case of rules liable to have financial consequences.

In that context, where the conditions for the grant of financial assistance by the Community to a Member State are set out in the grant decision but that Member State has neither published them nor made them known to the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance, it is not contrary to Community law to apply the principle of legal certainty so as to preclude repayment by that beneficiary of the amounts wrongly paid, provided that it is possible to establish the beneficiary’s good faith. In such a case, the Community’s interest in recovering those amounts must nevertheless be taken into consideration. Thus, where non‑repayment of the assistance by the beneficiary is due to the negligence of the national authorities, it follows from the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC that the Member State concerned may be held financially liable for the amounts not recovered in order to give effect to the Community’s right to obtain repayment of the amount of the assistance.

(see paras 25-26, 32-34, operative part)

2. Where the conditions for the grant of financial assistance by the Community to a Member State are set out in the grant decision but that Member State has neither published them nor made them known to the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance, it is not contrary to Community law to apply the principle of legal certainty so as to preclude repayment by that beneficiary of the amounts wrongly paid, provided that it is possible to establish the beneficiary’s good faith. In such a case, the Member State concerned may be held financially liable for the amounts not recovered in order to give effect to the Community’s right to obtain repayment of the amount of the assistance.

(see para. 34, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Remuneration – Income tax

(Art. 39 EC)

Summary

Article 39 EC is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not entitle a Community national who is not resident in the Member State in which he receives income that constitutes the major part of his taxable income to request, for the purposes of determination of the tax rate applicable to the income so received, that negative rental income relating to property situated in another Member State which he does not himself occupy be taken into account, whilst a resident of the first State can request that such negative rental income be taken into account.

In relation to direct taxes, the situations of residents and non‑residents are, as a rule, not comparable. Consequently, the fact that a Member State does not grant to a non‑resident taxpayer certain tax advantages which it grants to resident taxpayers is not, as a rule, discriminatory, since those two categories of taxpayer are not in a comparable situation.

The position is different, however, where the non-resident receives no significant income in his State of residence and obtains the major part of his taxable income from an activity performed in the State of employment, with the result that the State of his residence is not in a position to grant him the advantages resulting from the taking into account of his personal and family circumstances. Discrimination arises from the fact that those circumstances are taken into account neither in the State of residence nor in the State of employment.

The ground on which that finding of discrimination is based concerns all the tax advantages connected with the non‑resident’s ability to pay tax which are not taken into account either in the State of residence or in the State of employment, since the ability to pay tax forms part of the personal situation of the non‑resident.

(see paras 28-31, 34, 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality

(Arts 7 and 56 EC)

3. Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation

(Art. 56 EC)

Summary

1. Although it is not for the Court to rule on the compatibility of national rules with the provisions of Community law in proceedings brought under Article 234 EC, since the interpretation of such rules is a matter for the national courts, the Court does have jurisdiction to supply the latter with all the guidance as to the interpretation of Community law necessary to enable them to rule on the compatibility of such rules with the provisions of Community law.

(see para. 18)

2. Article 12 EC applies independently only to situations governed by Community law for which the Treaty lays down no specific rules of non-discrimination. The Treaty lays down in Article 56 EC, in particular, a specific rule of non‑discrimination in relation to the free movement of capital.

(see paras 28-29)

3. Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer of immovable property situated in a Member State, where that transfer is made by a resident of another Member State, to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated.

Such legislation constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC, in that it has the effect of making the transfer of capital less attractive for non-residents by deterring them from making investments in immovable property in the Member State concerned and, as a result, from carrying out transactions related to those investments such as selling immovable property.

Where: (i) the taxation in question concerns only one of the categories of income received by taxable persons, whether they are resident or non-resident; (ii) it concerns both categories of taxable persons; and (iii) the Member State in which the taxable income arises is the Member State concerned, there is no difference in situation capable of justifying the unequal tax treatment in respect of the taxation of capital gains between those two categories of taxable persons.

(see paras 39-40, 50, 53-54, 61, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by not having adopted within the prescribed period the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Capital duty charged on capital companies

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 3(1)(a), 4(1)(g) and (3)(b), and 7(2))

Summary

Article 4(1)(g) and (3)(b) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303 and by the Act concerning 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, must be interpreted to the effect that the waiver by a Member State of the charging of capital duty does not preclude a company falling within one of the categories referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of that directive from being classified as a capital company for the purposes of charging capital duty within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of that directive if its effective centre of management is transferred from that Member State to another Member State in which that duty is still levied.

Article 3(1) of Directive 69/335 specifies, in a mandatory and uniform manner for all Member States, the companies to be treated as capital companies for the purposes of that directive. A company taking one of the legal forms provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 69/335 must, therefore, be treated as a capital company within the meaning of that directive, and thus cannot be liable to capital duty if its effective centre of management is transferred from one Member State to another, on the ground that it would not be considered to be a capital company in the Member State of origin. Therefore, the fact that a Member State has exercised the option provided for in Article 7(2) of Directive 69/335 by abolishing capital duty does not mean that, if the effective centre of management of a capital company is transferred from that Member State to another Member State, the latter State may automatically make that transaction subject to capital duty.

Nevertheless, the result of such an interpretation cannot be to encourage conduct characterised by the putting in place of artificial arrangements with the sole aim of obtaining a fiscal advantage. It is for the national court to verify whether there is objective evidence of action constituting an abusive practice of that kind.

(see paras 21, 28-29, 35, 45-47, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences

(Arts 10 EC and 88(2) EC)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment

(Art. 88(2) EC)

3. Member States – Obligations – Duty of loyal cooperation with the Community institutions

(Art. 10 EC)

Summary

1. The only defence available to a Member State in opposing an infringement action by the Commission under Article 88(2) EC is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it to implement the decision in question. Difficulties in implementing decisions involving the recovery of amounts of aid from a large number of undertakings in conjunction with numerous individual calculation parameters do not constitute an absolute impossibility.

A Member State which, in giving effect to a Commission decision on State aid, encounters unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties, whether of a political, legal or practical kind, or becomes aware of consequences overlooked by the Commission, must submit those problems to the Commission for consideration, together with proposals for suitable amendments to the decision in question. In such cases, the Commission and the Member State concerned must work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the provisions of the Treaty and in particular those on aid.

(see paras 27-28)

2. No provision of Community law requires the Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the common market, to fix the exact amount of the aid to be recovered. It is sufficient for the Commission’s decision to include information enabling the recipient to work out itself, without overmuch difficulty, that amount.

(see para. 29)

3. A Member State which is the addressee of a Commission decision finding that aid granted by that Member State is incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC if it fails to provide to the Commission, which has requested it, the information necessary in order to determine the final amount of aid to be repaid and takes no recovery action, arguing that it is impossible to identify a reliable methodology for calculating that amount.

(see paras 45-52)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supply of services – Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 9(2)(e), third indent)

Summary

A Member State maintaining legislation under which the place where an executor’s services are supplied must be determined as the place where the supplier carries on his business does not contravene the provisions of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. The services of an executor do not fall under the third indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive, since they have a specific character which distinguishes them from the services principally and habitually carried out by a lawyer, which concern the representation and defence of a person’s interests rather than the putting into effect of wishes which have crystallised. Similarly, an executor’s and a lawyer’s services cannot be regarded as similar because they do not serve the same purpose. Whereas, in the majority of cases, executors value and distribute the testator’s estate for the benefit of the recipients of their services and sometimes, especially in connection with the management of the property of minors, they protect and ensure a return on that estate, the services carried out by a lawyer seek primarily to ensure that a claim of a legal nature succeeds.

(see paras 36-37, 39-40, 42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Economic operators

(Council Directive 92/50, Art. 26(1) and (2))

2. Community law – Direct effect – Directly applicable provision of the Treaty – Obligations of national courts

Summary

1. Article 26(1) and (2) of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78, precludes national provisions which exclude candidates or tenderers entitled under the law of the Member State concerned to provide the service in question, including those composed of groups of service providers, from submitting a tender, in a procedure for the award of a public service contract with a value greater than the threshold for application of Directive 92/50, solely on the ground that those candidates or tenderers do not have a legal form corresponding to a specific category of legal persons, namely that of a company with share capital.

2. It is for the national court, to the full extent of its discretion under national law, to interpret and apply national law in accordance with the requirements of Community law and, in so far as such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any provision of national law which is contrary to those requirements.

(see paras 28, 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials – Staff Regulations – Legal nature – Regulation – Direct applicability – Obligations of the Member States

(Art. 249(2)EC; Council Regulation No 259/68)

Summary

Regulation No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Regulation No 2074/83, has general application, is binding in its entirety and is directly applicable in all Member States. Having regard to the direct applicability of that regulation in the legal systems of the Member States, a child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations must be treated in the same way as a child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under national law or an international social security convention in the Member State concerned.

(see paras 24-25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Cosmetic products – Packaging and labelling – Directive 76/768

(Art. 30 EC; Council Directive 76/768, Art. 7)

Summary

Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Directive 93/35, does not preclude a national provision which, in the interests of prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties, requires the importer of cosmetic products to communicate to the Ministry of Health and to the Region the name or the corporate name of the business, its registered office and that of the manufacturing plant, and a full and detailed list of the substances used and the substances contained in those products.

Such an obligation to provide information is proportionate to the objective of protecting human health, contained in Article 7(3) of Directive 76/768, since it ensures that the competent national authorities have at their disposal detailed information on the relevant product.

(see paras 24-25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Conditions for granting

(Commission Regulation No 615/98, Arts 4 and 5(2) and (3); Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds

(Commission Regulation No 615/98, Art. 5(3); Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)

Summary

1. Despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, the competent authority may consider that Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29, has not been complied with pursuant to Article 5(3) of that regulation. However, the competent authority can arrive at that conclusion only if it bases itself on the documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98, on the reports referred to in Article 4 of that regulation concerning animal health, or on any other objective element with implications for the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, if appropriate, that the elements relied on by the competent authority in substantiation of its finding of non‑compliance with Directive 91/628, are not relevant.

(see paras 36, 39‑42, 44, operative part 1)

2. Pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, the competent authority may refuse the export refund for failure to comply with the provisions of Directive 91/628 concerning the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29 concerning animal health, even in the absence of evidence showing that the welfare of the animals transported was, in fact, adversely affected.

The Community legislature considered, on the basis of scientific and veterinary studies as well as assessments of the application of Community legislation carried out in the animal protection field, that once the provisions of Directive 91/628 concerning the health of those animals are no longer complied with, the welfare of the animals is liable to be endangered and can no longer be guaranteed. Such an approach appears moreover to be fully justified by the circumstance that, in practice, it is not always possible for the competent authority to ascertain that the animals have actually suffered, or been injured, as a result of non‑compliance with those provisions.

(see paras 48‑49, 52, operative part 2)