ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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. 226 EC) (see para. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross‑border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1).

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 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 19 of that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – System of taxation of imported second-hand cars (Art. 90, first para., EC) (see paras 26-32)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax (Art. 90, first para., EC; Council Directives 77/388, Art. 17(1) and (2), and 2006/112, Arts 167 and 168) (see paras 34-37)

3. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – System of taxation of imported second‑hand cars (Art. 90, first para., EC) (see paras 42-45)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), now Articles 167 and 168 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 providing for value added tax on the tax on vehicles and a right to deduct the corresponding amount from output value added tax – Application of the same taxable value to vehicles under three months old and to new vehicles – Application of a level of depreciation of 0.8% per month to vehicles under six months old where there are no equivalent vehicles on the national market.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing the tax referred to in Article 5 of Law No 1482/1994 on vehicle tax (autoverolaki (1482/1994)) of 29 December 1994 to be deducted from value added tax, pursuant to Article 102(1)(4) of Law No 1501/1993 on value added tax (arvonlisäverolaki (1501/1993)) of 30 December 1993, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, reproduced in Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

2. Declares that, by retaining, when taxing vehicles, the same taxable value for vehicles under three months old as for new vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC.

3. Orders the action to be dismissed as to the remainder.

4. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay, apart from its own costs, three-quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities.

5. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the remainder of its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Actions for damages (Arts 225(1) EC, 235 EC, 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 39-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2008 in Case T‑301/05 Guigard v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action for damages for the loss which he allegedly suffered by reason of the Commission’s conduct with regard to the non‑renewal of his contract of employment concluded in the framework of technical co‑operation between the Community and the Republic of Niger financed by the European Development Fund – Conditions governing the incurral by the Community of non-contractual liability – Infringement of Articles 313(2)(k) and 314 of the Fourth Convention of Lomé (OJ 1991 L 229, p. 1), as revised by the Agreement signed in Mauritius (OJ 1998 L 156, p. 3) – Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the rights of the defence.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T‑301/05 Guigard v Commission inasmuch as it declared the action brought by Mr Guigard to be admissible;

2. Dismisses the action brought by Mr Guigard in Case T‑301/05;

3. Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal brought by Mr Guigard;

4. Orders Mr Guigard to pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
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. 226 EC) (see point 22

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to have adopted all the laws and regulations necessary to transpose correctly Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1) – Concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order correctly to transpose Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Cooling systems for computers composed of a heat sink and a fan

(Council Regulation No 2658/87; Commission Regulation No 1789/2003)

Summary

Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1789/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that goods made up of a heat sink and a fan and which are solely intended to be incorporated in a computer must be classified under subheading 8473 30 90 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to that regulation.

Since those goods are composed of two distinct elements, namely, a heat sink and a fan, without either of the two subheadings under which those elements could be classified being more specific than the other, it is appropriate, for the purposes of classifying those goods, to have recourse to the rule in paragraph 3(b) of the general rules and to identify, from among the elements of which they are composed, the one which gives them their essential character. In that regard, the element which gives them their essential character is the heat sink, and not the fan. Since the main purpose of those goods is to absorb the heat of the processor and conduct it away, the element which allows that function to be fulfilled, and which was specially designed for that purpose, is the heat sink.

(see paras 29-34, 37-38, 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. 226 EC) (see para. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1) – Financial institutions which require authorisation by a public body, in particular banks and insurance companies.

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 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, with regard to financial institutions which require authorisation by a public authority, in particular certain banks and insurance companies, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 15(a))

Summary

Article 15(a) of Directive 2006/12 on waste must, as Community law currently stands, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of financing an urban waste management and disposal service, provides for a tax or charge calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by users of that service and not on the basis of the quantity of waste which they have actually produced and presented for collection.

In circumstances where holders of waste have it handled by a collector, Article 15(a) provides that, in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the cost of disposing of the waste must be borne by those holders. However, it is often difficult, indeed onerous, to determine the precise volume of urban waste presented for collection by each holder. Accordingly, recourse to criteria founded, first, on the waste-production capacity of the holders, calculated on the basis of the surface area of the property which they occupy and of its use, and/or, second, on the nature of the waste produced can provide a means of calculating the costs of disposing of that waste and allocating them among the various holders, since those two parameters are such as to have a direct impact on the amount of the costs.

It is, however, incumbent upon the national court to review, on the basis of the matters of fact and law placed before it, whether the tax for the disposal of private solid urban waste results in the allocation to certain ‘holders’, in the case in point hotel establishments, of costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the volumes or nature of the waste that they are liable to produce.

(see paras 44, 49-51, 56-57, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community designs – Right to the Community design – Designs developed in the context of an employment relationship – Scope

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 14(3))

2. Community designs – Right to the Community design – Transfer of the right to a Community design from the designer to his successor in title

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 14(1))

Summary

1. Article 14(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs, which provides that the right to the Community design vests in the employer where a design is developed by an employee in the execution of his duties or following the instructions given by his employer, unless otherwise agreed or specified under national law, does not apply to a Community design that has been produced as a result of a commission.

Indeed, the Community legislature intended to define the special system set out in Article 14(3) of the regulation by reference to a specific type of contractual relationship, namely that of an employment relationship, which precludes the application of Article 14(3) to other contractual relationships, such as that relating to a Community design that has been produced as a result of a commission.

(see paras 44, 51, 55, operative part 1)

2. Where, on the one hand, there are unregistered Community designs produced as a result of a commission, and on the other, the national legislation does not deem such designs to be the same as designs developed in the context of an employment relationship, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the right to the Community design vests in the designer, unless it has been assigned by way of contract to his successor in title.

The possibility of assigning by way of contract the right to the Community design from the designer to his successor in title within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the regulation both stems from the wording of that article and is consistent with the aims of the regulation. In that regard, adapting the protection of Community designs to the needs of all sectors of industry in the Community by means of a contractual assignment of the right to the Community design is likely to help to achieve the essential objective of the enforcement of the rights conferred by a Community design in an efficient manner throughout the territory of the Community. Moreover, enhanced protection for industrial design not only promotes the contribution of individual designers to the sum of Community excellence in the field, but also encourages innovation and development of new products and investment in their production.

It is, however, for the national court to ascertain the contents of such a contract and in that regard to determine whether the right to the unregistered Community design has in fact been transferred from the designer to his successor in title, by applying, in the context of that assessment, the law on contracts in order to determine who owns the right to the unregistered Community design, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the regulation.

(see paras 62, 77-82, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Refund of the tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country or in Community territory (Council Directives 79/1072, Art. 1, and 86/560, Art. 1) (see paras 33-39, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 1 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) and Article 1 of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory – Refund of VAT to a taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-member country but having a fixed establishment in Italy.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the Italian Republic has failed, in relation to the refund of value added tax to a taxable person residing in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in the Member State concerned, to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, and Article 1 of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory, by requiring a taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-member State, but having a fixed establishment in Italy and who, during the period at issue, supplied goods and services in Italy, to apply for a refund of input value added tax according to the mechanism provided by those directives rather than deduct it when the purchase in respect of which repayment of that tax is sought is made not through that fixed establishment, but directly by the principal establishment of that taxable person;

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

Summary



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Prohibition

(Art. 12 EC)

Summary

Article 12 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national rule which restricts the issue of an annual toll disc free of charge to those disabled persons who are resident or ordinarily resident in the territory of the Member State concerned, including also those persons who regularly travel to that State for professional or personal reasons.

In that regard, both the promotion of mobility and integration of disabled persons and the wish to ensure that there is a connection between the society of the Member State concerned and the recipient of the benefit at issue can constitute objective considerations of public interest which are capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of the citizens of the Union.

With regard to that measure, intended to facilitate regular journeys in national territory by disabled persons with a view to their integration in national society, the place of residence or of ordinary residence then appears to be a criterion suitable to establish the existence of a connection between those persons and the society of the Member State concerned such as, in particular, to distinguish them from other categories of users likely to use the road network of that Member State only occasionally or temporarily. As regards the proportionality of the conditions of residence and ordinary residence to the objectives pursued by the national rule at issue, those conditions are in addition interpreted widely, so that other connecting factors allow a sufficiently close connection to national society to be established for the purposes of grant of the free toll disc. In those circumstances, such a national rule does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives which it pursues.

(see paras 32, 36, 38, 40-41, 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. 226 EC) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Account to be taken of the effects of the whole of the infringement (Council Regulation 17, Art. 15; Commission notice 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 21, 24)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility – Claim or argument raised for the first time in the appeal proceedings – Inadmissibility (see para. 32)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Effect of an anti-competitive practice – Criterion not conclusive (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15; Commission notice 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 43-44)

4. Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court – Challenge on grounds of fairness to the General Court’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking – Excluded (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15) (see para. 72)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 in Case T-73/04 Carbone-Lorraine v Commission , in which the Court dismissed the application brought by the appellant for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant – Breach of the principle of the individual nature of penalties – Method for setting the amount of the fine imposed – Constant and close cooperation during the administrative procedure – Principles of proportionality and of equal treatment.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Le Carbone-Lorraine SA to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, save in County Cavan, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, as regards domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and to bear its own costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear one quarter of its own costs.