ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C‑319/13

Udo Rätzke

v

S+K Handels GmbH

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Energy labelling of televisions — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 — Responsibilities of dealers — Television supplied to the dealer without the label before the regulation became applicable — Dealer’s obligation to label that television from the date on which the regulation became applicable and to obtain a label subsequently’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 3 April 2014

Energy — Indication of the energy consumption of energy-related products –Directive 2010/30 and Regulation No 1062/2010 — Obligation for distributors to ensure that televisions are labelled — Scope — Televisions placed on the market before the date on which the regulation enters into force — Not included

(Commission Regulation No 1062/2010, Art. 4(a); European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/30)

Article 4(a) of Delegated Regulation No 1062/2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30 with regard to energy labelling of televisions must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation for dealers to ensure that each television, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by the suppliers in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation applies only to televisions which have been placed on the market, that is to say, dispatched for the first time by the manufacturer with a view to their distribution in the sales chain, from 30 November 2011.

(see para. 41, operative part)

Case C‑319/13

Udo Rätzke

v

S+K Handels GmbH

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Energy labelling of televisions — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 — Responsibilities of dealers — Television supplied to the dealer without the label before the regulation became applicable — Dealer’s obligation to label that television from the date on which the regulation became applicable and to obtain a label subsequently’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 3 April 2014

Energy — Indication of the energy consumption of energy-related products –Directive 2010/30 and Regulation No 1062/2010 — Obligation for distributors to ensure that televisions are labelled — Scope — Televisions placed on the market before the date on which the regulation enters into force — Not included

(Commission Regulation No 1062/2010, Art. 4(a); European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/30)

Article 4(a) of Delegated Regulation No 1062/2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30 with regard to energy labelling of televisions must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation for dealers to ensure that each television, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by the suppliers in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation applies only to televisions which have been placed on the market, that is to say, dispatched for the first time by the manufacturer with a view to their distribution in the sales chain, from 30 November 2011.

(see para. 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/12 — Excise duty having to be identical in all Member States — Prevention of double taxation

(Council Directive 92/12)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of relevant EU law — Reformulation of the questions

(Art. 267 TFEU; Council Directive 92/12)

3. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/12 — Products released for consumption in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State — Person receiving the products at issue — Products held successively by several persons — Excise duty chargeable to all persons holding the products

(Council Directives 2008/118, Art. 33(3) and 92/12, Arts 7(3) and 9(1))

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 17)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 20)

3. In expressly providing that the person ‘receiving the products’ at issue may be liable to excise duty on products subject to that duty released for consumption in a Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State, Article 7(3) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as meaning that, where the products have been held successively by several persons, any holder of the products at issue is liable to excise duty.

A more restrictive interpretation, to the effect that only the first holder of the products at issue is liable to excise duty, would defeat the purpose of Directive 92/12. Under that directive, the movement of products from the territory of one Member State to that of another may not give rise to systematic checks by national authorities, which are liable to impede the free movement of goods in the internal market of the European Union. Consequently, such an interpretation would render more uncertain the collection of excise duty due upon the crossing of an EU border.

That conclusion is also supported by Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12, which simplifies the provision made under Article 7 of Directive 92/12 by referring solely to the person ‘to whom the goods are delivered in the other Member State’.

It follows that Article 9(1) of Directive 92/12, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to designate as liable to excise duty a person who holds for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that State, products subject to excise duty that have been released for consumption in another Member State, even though that person was not the first holder of those products in the Member State of destination.

(see paras 25-28, operative part)
Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which the different life expectancies of men and women are applied as an actuarial factor for the calculation of a statutory social benefit payable due to an accident at work, when, by applying this factor, the lump-sum compensation paid to a man is less than that which would be paid to a woman of the same age and in a similar situation.

Such legislation constitutes unequal treatment which cannot be justified by either the grounds for derogation from the principle of equal treatment set out in Article 7(1) of Directive 79/7, or the provisions relating to the protection of women on the grounds of maternity in accordance with Article 4(2), an objective difference in the average life expectancy of men and women. In that regard, the calculation of that compensation cannot be made on the basis of a generalisation as regards the average life expectancy of men and women, since such a generalisation is likely to lead to discriminatory treatment of male insured persons as compared to female insured persons. In addition, when account is taken of general statistical data, according to sex, there is a lack of certainty that a female insured person always has a greater life expectancy than a male insured person of the same age placed in a comparable situation.

(see paras 34, 37, 38, 40, operative part 1)
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 35)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Question put by the General Court inviting a party to develop an argument raised in its defence — Absence (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 49‑53)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law (Art. 256 TFEU) (see paras 62-64)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Electrabel SA to pay the costs.
Case C‑34/13

Monika Kušionová

v

SMART Capital, a.s.

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Consumer credit agreement — Article 1(2) — Term reflecting a mandatory statutory provision — Scope of the directive — Articles 3(1), 4, 6(1) and 7(1) — Security for credit in the form of a charge on immovable property — Whether it is possible to enforce the charge by means of a sale by auction — Judicial review’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 September 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer (Art. 267 TFEU) Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Means to prevent the use of unfair terms — National legislation permitting the recovery of a debt by the extrajudicial enforcement of a charge on immovable property provided as security by the consumer — Lawfulness — Conditions — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Impact of the fundamental right of accommodation — Verification a matter for the national court (Charter of Fundamental Rights, Arts 7, 38, 47; Council Directive 93/13) Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Scope — Exclusion provided for in respect of contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Verification a matter for the national court (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 1(2))
1.

declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor, at the time of the gift, or the beneficiary, at the time of the taxable event, resided on the territory of another Member State, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted where at least one of the two parties concerned resided in Germany at the relevant time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU;
—

by not taking all necessary measures to ensure that part of the municipal waste going to the landfills of the Rome SubATO, excluding the Cecchina landfill, and to those of the Latina SubATO undergoes treatment, including a proper sorting of the various fractions of the waste and the stabilisation of the organic fraction, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1), in conjunction with Article 6(a), of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,
As regards export refunds, the condition relating to sound and fair marketable quality of the product exported, referred to in Article 13 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 1829/94, is a material condition required for the payment of refunds. In that regard, it follows from Article 13 that the Member States are to check that the products exported to third countries are of sound and fair marketable quality.

However, where the exporter has not fulfilled the obligation to keep registers in accordance with Regulation No 822/87 on the common organisation of the market in wine and Regulation No 2238/93 on the accompanying documents for the carriage of wine products and the relevant records to be kept, which is to be determined by the referring court, the Member States are deprived of the possibility of checking whether the products exported to third countries are of sound and fair marketable quality under Article 13 of Regulation No 3665/87 and, consequently, of ensuring that the conditions connected with the system of advanced payment of export refunds are satisfied.

(see paras 35, 36, 40)
It follows from the actual wording of that provision that the final price to be paid must be indicated at all times, without any distinction being made between the moment when that price is indicated for the first time, the moment when the customer selects a particular flight, or the moment when the contract is finally concluded. It follows, moreover, from recital 16 to Regulation No 1008/2008 that the obligation imposed on air carriers at all times to indicate the final price to be paid is necessary in order to enable customers to compare the prices for air services of different air carriers effectively, in accordance with the objective that it should be possible effectively to compare prices for air services, pursued by Article 23(1) of that regulation.

The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system for air services, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time.

The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system for air services, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown.

The obligation to indicate the final price to be paid for each flight in respect of which the fare is displayed, and not for the only flight specifically selected, enables customers to compare effectively the prices for air services, in accordance with the general objective of transparency of prices for air services, pursued by Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008. Furthermore, it does not in any way follow from that obligation that indicating the air fare or air rate for each of those flights, as provided in the third sentence of Article 23, is prohibited, in so far as the obligation to specify at least those fares or rates, as well as the taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees, where these items have been added to the air fare or air rate, is in addition to the obligation under the second sentence of Article 23(1) to indicate the final price.

(see paras 41, 43-45, operative part 2)
Social security — Migrant workers — Unemployment — Frontier workers — Determination as to whether the worker is partially unemployed or wholly unemployed — Application of criteria of EU law

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1606/98, Art. 71(1)(a))
Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that neither State-examined care workers who provide their services directly to persons in need of care nor a temporary-work agency which supplies such workers to establishments recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing come within the notion of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ contained in that provision.

Although the term ‘body’ in that provision is sufficiently broad to include private profit-making entities, it is clear that the supply of workers is not, in itself, a supply of services of general interest carried out in the social sector.

(see paras 27-29, operative part)
The freedom of movement of workers, first, prohibits a Member State from adopting a measure which favours workers residing in its territory if that measure ultimately favours that Member State’s own nationals, thereby giving rise to discrimination based on nationality. Secondly, having regard to the wording of Article 45(2) TFEU, which seeks to abolish all discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States, read in the light of Article 26 TFEU, that freedom also prohibits discrimination between non-resident workers if such discrimination leads to nationals of certain Member States being unduly favoured in comparison with others.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation by which a Member State provides that workers who resided in another Member State prior to taking up employment in its territory are to be granted a tax advantage consisting in the flat-rate exemption of reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses in an amount up to 30% of the taxable base, on condition that those workers resided at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from its border, unless those limits were set in such a way that that exemption systematically gives rise to a net overcompensation in respect of the extraterritorial expenses actually incurred.

The mere fact that limits are set concerning the distance in relation to the workers’ place of residence and concerning the ceiling of the exemption granted, taking as the starting point the border of the Member State where the place of work is located and the taxable base, respectively, even though this is necessarily approximate in nature, cannot, in itself, amount to indirect discrimination or an impediment to the free movement of workers. This is a fortiori so where the flat-rate rule operates in favour of the workers who benefit from it, in that it reduces significantly the administrative steps which those workers must undertake in order to obtain the exemption for the reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses.

It is, however, an inherent aspect of the granting, on a flat-rate basis, of a tax advantage which is deemed to cover situations in which the material conditions governing entitlement to that advantage have been satisfied beyond doubt that there will be other situations in which, for a variety of reasons, those conditions have also been satisfied, with those situations also giving rise to a right to that advantage on production of appropriate proof.

In that respect, while it is true that considerations of an administrative nature cannot justify a derogation by a Member State from the rules of EU law, Member States cannot be denied the possibility of attaining legitimate objectives through the introduction of rules which are easily managed and supervised by the competent authorities.

(see paras 32-34, 36, operative part)
Such a provision cannot be regarded as placing at a disadvantage predominantly a particular category of workers, in this case those working part-time and, in particular, women. It cannot, therefore be regarded as being an indirectly discriminatory measure within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7.

Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which provides that the contribution gaps existing within the reference period for calculating a contributory invalidity pension, after a period of part-time employment, are taken into account by using the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the reduction coefficient of that employment, whereas, if those gaps follow full-time employment, there is no provision for such a reduction.

The Framework Agreement on part-time work set out in the Annex to Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State which provides that the contribution gaps existing within the reference period for calculating a contributory invalidity pension, after a period of part-time employment, are taken into account by using the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the reduction coefficient of that employment, whereas, if those gaps follow full-time employment, there is no provision for such a reduction.

That pension is a statutory social security pension which cannot be regarded as constituting an employment condition. Accordingly, it does not fall within the scope of the Framework Agreement.

In addition, an interpretation of ‘obstacles of a legal … nature’, as referred to in Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement, under which Member States would be forced to adopt, outside the area of employment conditions, measures relating to such a pension would amount to imposing on those Member States general social policy obligations concerning measures that fall outside the scope of that Framework Agreement.

Furthermore, in view of the random nature of the impact of such a provision on part-time workers, such national legislation cannot be regarded as a legal obstacle likely to limit the opportunities for part-time work. First, that provision does not affect all part-time workers, but only workers who have had a gap in their contributions immediately after a period of part-time work. Secondly, that provision benefits workers who, even though employed part-time for much of their working lives, were employed full-time immediately before a contribution gap.

(see paras 38-41, operative part 2)
3.

Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Possibility of adjudicating without an oral procedure — No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 44-47)