ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive – Exemption for chartering of vessels used for navigation on the high seas

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 15, point 5)

Summary

Article 15(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from the value added tax provided for by that provision does not apply to services consisting of making a vessel available, for reward, with a crew, to natural persons for purposes of leisure travel on the high seas.

That article covers the hiring of vessels used for navigation on the high seas and carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial, industrial or fishing activities. In order for such a hiring service to be capable of exemption under that provision, the lessee of the vessel concerned must use it for an economic activity. It follows that if the vessel is leased to persons who use it exclusively for leisure purposes and not for financial gain, outside the sphere of any economic activity, the hire service does not meet the explicit conditions for value added tax exemption set out in Article 15(5) of the Sixth Directive.

(see paras 13-14, 21, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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) (see paras 30-35)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 31)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Commission’s right to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 32)

4. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil – Justification on basis of a possible failure to fulfil its obligations by another Member State – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 33)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) – Installations that may have an effect on emissions into the air, water or soil and on pollution – Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the directive not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific European Union legislation, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Subject-matter of the dispute

–

Determination during the pre-litigation procedure

–

Obligation to present a coherent, detailed statement of objections

–

Extent (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paras 19-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41) and of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1) – Failure to take the measures necessary in order that concentrations of PM 10 in ambient air should not exceed the limit values fixed.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, for the years 2005 to 2007, by exceeding the limit values for annual and daily concentrations of PM 10 in ambient air, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

2. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Several debtors – Remission of duties granted to one debtor on the basis of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code – Extinction of the debt for all the jointly and severally liable debtors – Not permitted

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 213, 233 and 239)

Summary

Articles 213, 233 and 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as precluding the application, in the context of joint and several liability for a customs debt within the meaning of Article 213, of a principle of national law which has the effect that a partial remission of duty granted on the basis of Article 239 to one of the debtors may be relied on by all the other debtors, so that the extinction of the debt provided for in point (b) of Article 233 of that Code relates to the debt as such and thus releases all the jointly and severally liable debtors from payment of the debt to the extent of the amount remitted.

It follows from the system of Article 239 of the Customs Code that a decision to remit duty on the basis of that provision can be relied on solely in favour of the person making the application for remission. The absence of deception or obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned, which under Article 239 is a condition for the grant of a remission of import duty, must be examined in the light of the particular relevant circumstances in relation to the fact which gave rise to the customs debt on the part of each debtor and of that person’s professional experience and diligence in relation to the acts of which he is accused and which are the basis of his joint and several liability.

(see paras 52, 61, 66, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Electrical connectors, manufactured in metal, representing only some of the plugs and sockets manufactured subsequently, without ensuring insulation at the connection point

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I; Commission Regulations No 1810/2004, No 1719/2005 and No 1549/2006)

Summary

Subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended with respect to 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively, by Regulation No 1810/2004, Regulation No 1719/2005 and Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that electrical connectors, which are manufactured from pressed metal (copper, brass, sheet steel) and not insulated, and which are labelled ‘terminals’, subdivided into ‘female terminals’ and ‘male terminals’, are not excluded from that subheading on the ground that they do not ensure the insulation of the connection at the connection point or that they represent only some of the plugs and sockets manufactured subsequently, provided that they permit multi-way connection, for instance between appliances, cables and connector boards, simply by plugging the attached plugs into the attached sockets with no assembly work required.

(see para. 30, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – European Union legislation – Substantive scope – Sickness benefits – Definition

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1)(a))

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages

(Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2))

Summary

1. A benefit is regarded as a social security benefit when it is granted, without any individual, discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a statutorily defined position and relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71. It follows that benefits granted objectively on the basis of a statutorily defined position and intended to improve the state of health and quality of life of persons reliant on care have as their essential purpose the supplementing of sickness insurance benefits and must therefore be regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ for the purpose of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation. Such is the position as regards the benefits paid by certain Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany to the blind, the deaf and the disabled, inasmuch as since they are intended to compensate, in the form of a flat-rate contribution, for the additional everyday expenditure resulting from the recipients’ disability.

(see paras 27-29)

2. The equal treatment rule which appears in Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community prohibits not only overt discrimination on grounds 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. Unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to the aim pursued, a provision of national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory if it is intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage. That is the case of a residence condition laid down in national legislation for the grant of benefits for the blind, the deaf and the disabled, which can be more easily satisfied by national workers than by those from other Member States.

(see paras 34-38)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Plastic dialysis drainage bag intended exclusively for use with a dialyser (artificial kidney) – Plastic urine drainage bag intended exclusively for use with a catheter

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I)

2. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Interpretation – Use of the classification opinions of the Customs Code Committee and the World Customs Organisation

Summary

1. The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (‘CN’), must be interpreted as meaning that a dialysis drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and can be used only with, a dialyser (artificial kidney), had, between May 2001 and December 2003, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the CN as ‘plastics and articles thereof’ and that a urine drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and therefore can be used only in connection with, a catheter had, during the same period, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the CN as ‘plastics and articles thereof’.

Those products cannot be classified either as ‘parts’ or as ‘accessories’ or a catheter (subheading 9018 39 00) or a dialyser (artificial kidney) (subheading 9018 90 30) respectively, inasmuch as neither the urine drainage bag for catheters nor the drainage bag for dialysers is indispensable for the functioning of those instruments or apparatus, nor do they enable the instruments and apparatus to be adapted for a particular operation, or increase their range of operations, or enable them to perform a particular service connected with their main function.

(see paras 35-36, 38, 43, operative part)

2. The interpretative opinions of the Customs Code Committee and the Committee of the World Customs Organisation respectively, in the CN and the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, which have not led to the adoption of a regulation, may validly be used in legal relationships created and established before those opinions were adopted.

(see para. 42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive – Banking transactions covered by Article 13B(d)(3) and (5)

(Council Directive 77/388, Article 13B(d)(3) and (5))

Summary

Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax under that provision does not cover electronic messaging services for financial institutions, such as swift services.

If swift services are electronic messaging services which are simply intended to transmit information, they do not by themselves perform any of the functions of one of the financial transactions referred to in Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say, those that have the effect of transferring funds or securities, and do not therefore possess the character of such transactions.

(see paras 34, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Categories of aid, defined by legislation, that may be regarded as compatible with the internal market – Regulation No 68/2001 on training aid – Criteria for assessment – Individual examination of training aid ineligible for the exemption from notification – Taking into account the criterion of the necessity of the aid – Whether permissible (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU; Commission Regulation No 68/2001, Art. 5) (see paras 30-31, 33)

2. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid eligible for the derogation laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU – Operating aid – Excluded – Training aides – Criterion of the necessity of the aid – Positive effects for certain economic areas or sectors – Irrelevant (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU) (see paras 34-36, 61)

3. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid that may be regarded as compatible with the internal market – Assessment in the light of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU – Taking into account previous practice – Excluded – No breach of the principle of equal treatment (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU) (see paras 38, 50)

4. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Training aid – Incentive effect of the aid on the choice of the site where an undertaking is to be installed – Irrelevant (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU) (see para. 42)

5. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Elements to be taken into consideration – Taking account of factors linked to the recipient’s practice or business strategy – Whether permissible (Arts 107(3) TFEU and 108(2) and (3) TFEU) (see paras 48-49)

6. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid eligible for the derogation laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU – Conditions – Training aid – Criterion of the necessity of the aid – Taking account of the existence of national legislation requiring staff to be trained – Whether permissible (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU) (see para. 56)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case T‑396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action seeking partial annulment of Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 regarding the State aid which Germany intends to grant to DHL (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 31) – Aid for training – Decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market – Incorrect examination of the necessity of the aid – Disregard of the positive external effects of the aid and of its incentive effects on the choice of the site.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Uniform legislation – Protection of plant varieties – Action for infringement brought by the holder of a Community plant variety right or the person enjoying the right of exploitation against a third party which has obtained harvested material of the protected variety through another person enjoying the right of exploitation who has contravened the conditions or limitations set out in the licensing contract concluded at an earlier stage with the holder – Lawfulness – Condition

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, as amended by Regulation No 873/2004, Arts 11(1), 13(1) to (3), 16, 27, 94 and 104)

Summary

Article 94 of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Regulation No 873/2004, read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 13(1) to (3), 16, 27 and 104 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of a Community plant variety right or the person enjoying the right of exploitation may bring an action for infringement against a third party which has obtained harvested material of the protected variety through another person enjoying the right of exploitation who has contravened the conditions or limitations set out in the licensing contract that that other person concluded at an earlier stage with the holder to the extent that the conditions or limitations in question relate directly to the essential features of the Community plant variety right concerned. It is for the national court to make that assessment.

It is of no significance for the assessment of the infringement in such a case that the third party which effected the acts on the harvested material of the protected variety sold or disposed of was aware or was deemed to be aware of the conditions or limitations imposed in that licensing contract.

(see paras 44, 49, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Protection of public health – Food hygiene – Obligations of food business operators – General hygiene provisions applicable to all operators

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 852/2004, Arts 4(2), 5 and Annex II, Chapter IX, paragraph 3)

Summary

Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to containers used for self-service retail of bread and bakery products, the fact that a potential purchaser could conceivably have touched the foodstuffs offered for sale by hand or sneezed on them does not make it possible, on that basis alone, to hold that those foodstuffs were not protected against any contamination likely to render them unfit for human consumption, injurious to health or contaminated in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect them to be consumed in that state.

In that regard, account must be taken of the measures taken by the operators under Article 5 of Regulation No 852/2004 in order to prevent, eliminate or reduce to acceptable levels the hazard which the contamination referred to in paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to that regulation may present. It cannot be concluded that the measures taken by the operators were insufficient without duly taking into consideration the possible expert evidence submitted by those operators to show that such containers do not pose hygiene problems.

(see paras 22-24, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Increase in the assets of a company

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 4(2)(b))

Summary

On a proper construction of Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303, the absorption by a member of a company’s losses pursuant to an undertaking given by the member before the losses were sustained, the sole purpose of which was to cover such losses, does not increase the assets of that company.

Although the absorption by a member of losses incurred by a company must, in principle, be regarded as a contribution increasing the company’s assets, that is not the case in the circumstances mentioned above. That exception is justified by the fact that, by virtue of the obligation accepted beforehand by its member, the company in whose favour such an undertaking is entered into will not be able to record a loss, whatever the results of its economic activity, for any losses will automatically be passed on to its member. Consequently, in the specific situation in which such an undertaking has been given before the company records a loss, it is established that the results of the company’s economic activity will not affect its economic potential.

(see paras 21-24, 26, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Persons liable to pay the tax

–

Derogations from a national reverse charge system

–

National legislation requiring of a seller or provider established outside the Member State concerned the designation of a tax representative and identification for value added tax purposes in that Member State

–

Legislation additionally authorising that seller or provider to offset the deductible tax paid against that collected in the name and for the account of its customers

–

Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214) (see paras 39, 42, 46, 50

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – National legislation imposing the designation of a tax representative by a seller or provider established outside the national territory – Duty of identification for VAT purposes – Nature and extent of the right to deduct.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by providing in Title IV of Administrative Instruction 3 A-9-06 No 105 of 23 June 2006 for an administrative concession derogating from a value added tax reverse charge scheme and necessitating, among other things, the designation of a tax representative by a seller or provider established outside France, the identification of that seller or provider for value added tax purposes in France and the offsetting of the deductible value added tax that he has paid against that which he has collected in the name and on behalf of his or her customers, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and, in particular, Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214 thereof;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
Since a Member State has sovereignty, even if functional and limited, over the continental shelf adjacent to it, work carried out on fixed or floating installations positioned on the continental shelf, in the context of the prospecting for and/or exploitation of natural resources, is to be regarded as work carried out in the territory of that State for the purposes of applying Union law.

A Member State which takes advantage of the economic rights to prospect and/or exploit natural resources on that part of the continental shelf which is adjacent to it cannot avoid the application of the provisions of Union law designed to ensure freedom of movement for persons working on such installations.

(see paras 35, 36)