ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions – Exemption of betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(i))

Summary

Article 135(1)(i) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exercise of the discretionary power of the Member States to fix conditions and limitations on the exemption from value added tax provided for by that provision allows those States to exempt from that tax certain forms only of gambling.

That provision leaves a broad discretion to the Member States as regards the exemption or the taxation of the transactions concerned, for it allows those States to fix the conditions and the limitations to which entitlement to that exemption may be subject. In addition, its wording does not contain any indication to suggest that the Community legislature intended to put in place any form whatsoever of quantitative restriction in order, inter alia, to ensure that at least 50% of the forms of gambling operated and organised in a Member State or at least 50% of the turnover generated by the operation and organisation of those forms of gambling could come within the value added tax exemption provided for in that provision. Moreover, the principle of fiscal neutrality, in accordance with which supplies of similar services, which are therefore in competition with each other, must not be treated differently for value added tax purposes, does not preclude such legislation. That principle cannot, if it is not to deprive Article 135(1)(i) of Directive 2006/112 and the broad discretion which that provision grants to Member States of all effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding one form of gambling from being exempt from the payment of value added tax while another form of gambling is not, in so far, however, as the two forms of gambling are not in competition with one another.

(see paras 26-27, 34-35, 39, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Customs union – Goods free from customs duties when entered for free circulation –Act of Accession 2003

(Act of Accession 2003, Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 448)

2. Customs union – Goods free from customs duties when entered for free circulation –Act of Accession 2003

(Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1; Council Regulation No 2913/92; Commission Regulation No 2454/93)

3. Customs union – Import duties – Scope – Value added tax

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 4(10); Council Directive No 77/388, Art. 2(2), 11, B(3)(a), and 21(2))

Summary

1. Since the goods were in transport in the enlarged Community on the date of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, the procedure provided for in Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1 of the Act of Accession applies to the exclusion of the customs procedures. It follows that, in such a situation, the procedure provided for in Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1 of the Act of Accession being exhaustive, Article 448 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions to the implementation of Council Regulation No 2913/93 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 2787/2000 concerning simplified procedures for maritime transport in the context of the Community transit rules, is not applicable. Therefore, the actions provided for in Article 448 of implementing Regulations No 2454/93 cannot be subscribed for the export formalities referred to in Annex IV.

(see paras 32-35, operative part 1)

2. Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 and Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 2787/2000, are applicable in the new Member States as from 1 May 2004, but the procedure provided for in Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1 of the Act of Accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic cannot be relied on where the export formalities set out therein have not been completed with respect to goods in transport in the enlarged Community at the date of accession of those new Member States of the European Union.

(see para. 41, operative part 2)

3. Article 4(10) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as meaning that import duties do not include the value added tax to be levied on the importation of goods. When goods are imported, the obligation to pay the value added tax is imposed on the person or persons designated or accepted as being liable by the Member State into which the goods are imported.

(see paras 47, 49, 52, operative part 3-4)
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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/66) (see paras 7-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 2006 L 266, 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 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Duty of Member States to make provision for a review procedure

(Council Directive 89/665)

Summary

Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 92/50, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the right to damages for an infringement of public procurement law by a contracting authority conditional on that infringement being culpable, including the case in which the application of that legislation rests on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault and on the fact that the latter cannot plead that because it has no individual abilities, it cannot be held subjectively responsible for the alleged infringement.

The remedy of damages provided for in Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665 can constitute, where appropriate, a procedural alternative compatible with the principle of effectiveness underlying the objective pursued by that directive of ensuring effective review procedures only when the possibility of damages being awarded in the event of infringement of the public procurement rules is no more dependent than the other legal remedies provided for in Article 2(1) of that directive on a finding that the contracting authority is at fault. It makes little difference in that regard that the national legislation does not impose on the person harmed the burden of proving that the contracting authority is at fault, but requires the latter to rebut the presumption that it is at fault, while limiting the grounds on which it can rely for that purpose.

(see paras 39-40, 45, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run –Date of publication of the measure at issue – Interested person concerned later – No effect (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 37-40)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Concepts that cannot concern the point from which time starts to run (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 40, 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2008 in Case T‑45/08 Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38348 – Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings given by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Classification of goods – Binding tariff information – Purpose – One type of goods – Meaning

(Council Regulation No 2913/92; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 6(2))

Summary

Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 1602/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for binding tariff information may relate to different goods provided that these all belong to one and the same type of goods. Only goods which have similar characteristics and whose distinguishing features are completely irrelevant for the purposes of their tariff classification may be regarded as belonging to one type of goods for the purposes of that provision.

(see para. 24, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of provisions of European Union law manifestly inapplicable in the main proceedings

(Art. 49 EC and 267 TFEU)

Summary

The Court has no jurisdiction where it is obvious that the provision of European Union law referred to the Court for interpretation is incapable of applying. Consequently, the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the freedom to provide services in proceedings in which all the facts are confined within a single Member State, such as a dispute involving a principal contractor and a subcontractor both established in the same Member State, and in which all the facts were confined to that Member State.

(see paras 10-11,13)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Union law – Principles – Equal treatment – Equal treatment for men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services – Directive 2004/113 – Actuarial factors

(Council Directive 2004/113, Art. 5(2))

Summary

Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services is invalid with effect from 21 December 2012.

It is not disputed that the purpose of Directive 2004/113 in the insurance services sector is, as is reflected in Article 5(1) of that directive, the application of unisex rules on premiums and benefits. Recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 2004/113 expressly states that, in order to guarantee equal treatment between men and women, the use of sex as an actuarial factor must not result in differences in premiums and benefits for insured individuals. Recital 19 in the preamble to that directive describes the option granted to Member States not to apply the rule of unisex premiums and benefits as an option to permit ‘exemptions’. Accordingly, Directive 2004/113 is based on the premiss that, for the purposes of applying the principle of equal treatment for men and women, enshrined in Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter, the respective situations of men and women with regard to insurance premiums and benefits contracted by them are comparable.

Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113, which enables the Member States in question to maintain without temporal limitation an exemption from the rule of unisex premiums and benefits, works against the achievement of the objective of equal treatment between men and women, which is the purpose of the directive, and is incompatible with Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. That provision must therefore be considered to be invalid upon the expiry of an appropriate transitional period.

(see paras 30, 32-34, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action (Art. 288(3) TFEU) (see para. 22)

3. 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)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37)

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 Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Provisions of the Treaty – Article 48 TFEU – No direct effect

(Art. 48 TFEU)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Supplementary pension – Conditions of acquisition governed by a collective agreement

(Art. 45 TFEU)

Summary

1. Article 48 TFEU does not have any direct effect that may be relied on by an individual against his private-sector employer in proceedings before national courts.

(see para. 16, operative part 1)

2. In the context of the mandatory application of a collective labour agreement, it is contrary to Article 45 TFEU:

– in determining the period for the acquisition of definitive entitlements to supplementary pension benefits in a Member State, for the years of service completed by a worker for the same employer in establishments of that employer situated in different Member States and pursuant to the same coordinating contract of employment not to be included;

– for a worker who has been transferred from an establishment of his employer in one Member State to an establishment of the same employer in another Member State to be regarded as having left the employer of his own free will.

(see para. 36, operative part 2)
In proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, and the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose.

The Commission has not proved the alleged failure of a Member State to fulfil the obligation to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons not intended for critical uses on board ships laid down in Regulation No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

The interpretation advocated by the Commission of the third indents relating to the critical use of halon 1301 and halon 2402 in Annex VII to Regulation No 2037/2000 is based on two claims. First, the halon-based systems installed in the vast majority of cargo ships are fire extinguishing systems, not systems for making inert. Second, those provisions cover only two particular cases in which halon-based systems may be used for the purpose of making inert, namely in oil tankers and for machinery used in connection with the automatic pumping of flour in or out of a ship’s hold.

However, that interpretation cannot be inferred either from the provisions of that annex or from any other provision in Regulation No 2037/2000. Moreover, there is no reference in the preamble to the regulation to the two situations mentioned by the Commission.

On the other hand, the third indents relating to the use of halon 1301 and halon 2402 in Annex VII to Regulation No 2037/2000 are formulated in broad terms, referring to their use ‘in the military and oil, gas and petrochemical sector, and in existing cargo ships’.

(see paras 33-35)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Official control of animal feed and food – Financing – Fees payable for health inspections and controls in respect of milk production

(European Parliament and Council Directive Regulation No 882/2004, Art. 27(3), (4) and (6), and Annex IV, Section B)

Summary

Article 27(3) and (4) of Regulation No 882/2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as enabling a Member State to levy fees at the minimum rates laid down in Annex IV, section B to that regulation without having to adopt a measure of application at national level, even though the costs borne by the competent authorities in connection with the health inspections and controls laid down in that regulation are lower than those rates, when the specified conditions for applying Article 27(6) of that regulation are not satisfied.

(see para. 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Reproduction right – Private copying exception – Fair compensation – Person responsible for paying levy

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(2)(b) and (5))

2. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 –Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Reproduction right – Private copying exception

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(2)(b) and (5))

Summary

1. On a proper construction of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, in particular Article 5(2)(b) and (5) thereof, the final user who carries out, on a private basis, the reproduction of a protected work must, in principle, be regarded as the person responsible for paying the fair compensation provided for in Article 5(2)(b). However, given the practical difficulties in identifying private users and obliging them to compensate rightholders for the harm caused to them, it is open to the Member States to establish a private copying levy chargeable to the persons who make reproduction equipment, devices and media available to that final user, since they are able to pass on the amount of that levy in the price paid by the final user for that service.

(see paras 27, 29, operative part 1)

2. Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, in particular Article 5(2)(b) and (5) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member State which has introduced a system of private copying levies chargeable to the manufacturer or importer of media for reproduction of protected works, and in the territory of which the harm caused to authors by the use for private purposes of their work by purchasers who reside there occurs, to ensure that those authors actually receive the fair compensation intended to compensate them for that harm. In that regard, the mere fact that the commercial seller of reproduction equipment, devices and media is established in a Member State other than that in which the purchasers reside has no bearing on that obligation to achieve a certain result. It is for the national court, when it is impossible to ensure recovery of the fair compensation from the purchasers, to interpret national law in order to allow recovery of that compensation from the person responsible for payment acting on a commercial basis.

(see para. 41, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Comparison between the normal value and the export price – Adjustments

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(10))

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from non-market economy countries, as referred to in Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation No 384/96

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(1), 3 and 7)

Summary

1. When anti-dumping measures are applied, the determination of the normal value and that of the export price are subject to different rules. Therefore, sales costs, administrative costs and other general costs do not necessarily have to be treated in the same way in every case. However, possible differences between the two values may be taken into account under the adjustments provided for in Article 2(10) of Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation No 384/96.

In that regard, it is apparent from the wording and scheme of Article 2(10) of Basic Regulation No 384/96 that an adjustment of the export price or of the normal value may be made solely in order to take account of differences concerning factors which affect prices and, thus, their comparability, in order to ensure that a comparison is made at the same level of trade. Thus, to make such an adjustment, the European Union institutions may rely on sales costs resulting from the marketing of goods on the Community market, since the normal value and the export price have been determined at two different levels of trade and sales costs may have a definite effect on the comparison between the export price and the normal value.

(see paras 25-26, 37, 39)

2. Even though Article 2(1) of Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation No 384/96 sets out the general principle that the normal value is normally to be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting countries, it does not follow from either the wording or the scheme of Article 2(7) of that regulation or from the Court’s case‑law that, when the institutions of the European Union determine the normal value ‘on any other reasonable basis’, that normal value must always correspond to the normal value at which the product is supplied to the first independent customer. Such an interpretation would undermine the discretion granted to the institutions of the European Union when determining the normal value in respect of non-market-economy countries.

That conclusion is not brought into question by Article 2(3) of the basic regulation, which concerns only the calculation of the normal value of an export undertaking operating in a market economy.

(see paras 33-34)