ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
60

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of that article, for a collective management company which has a de facto monopoly in a Member State to impose on organisers of musical events, in respect of the right to communicate musical works to the public, a charging scheme in which: – on the one hand, the copyright royalties due are calculated on the basis of a tariff applied to the gross receipts from ticket sales, without it being possible to deduct from those receipts all the costs pertaining to the organisation of the festival which are not related to the musical works which are performed at it, provided that, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case, the royalties actually imposed by the management company pursuant to that charging scheme are not excessive in relation, inter alia, to the nature and scope of the use of the works, the economic value generated by that use and the economic value of the services of that management company, which it is for the national court to ascertain, and – on the other hand, a flat-rate system in tranches is used in order to determine the share of the musical works performed which is taken from that management company’s repertoire, provided that no other method exists which enables the use of those works to be identified and to be quantified more precisely and that is capable of achieving the same legitimate aim, which is the protection of the interests of composers and music editors, without, however, leading to a disproportionate increase in the costs incurred for the purposes of the management of contracts and the supervision of the use of musical works protected by copyright; it is for the national court to ascertain that, in the light of the actual case before it and taking account of all the relevant circumstances, including the availability and reliability of the data provided and the technological tools in existence.
7

Article 18 of Directive 2010/24 provides: ‘1. The requested authority shall not be obliged to grant the assistance provided for in Articles 10 to 16 if recovery of the claim would, because of the situation of the debtor, create serious economic or social difficulties in the requested Member State, in so far as the laws, regulations and administrative practices in force in that Member State allow such exception for national claims. 2. The requested authority shall not be obliged to grant the assistance provided for in Articles 5 and 7 to 16, if the initial request for assistance pursuant to Article 5, 7, 8, 10 or 16 is made in respect of claims which are more than 5 years old, dating from the due date of the claim in the applicant Member State to the date of the initial request for assistance. However, in cases where the claim or the initial instrument permitting enforcement in the applicant Member State is contested, the 5-year period shall be deemed to begin from the moment when it is established in the applicant Member State that the claim or the instrument permitting enforcement may no longer be contested. Moreover, in cases where a postponement of the payment or instalment plan is granted by the competent authorities of the applicant Member State, the 5-year period shall be deemed to begin from the moment when the entire payment period has come to its end. However, in those cases the requested authority shall not be obliged to grant the assistance in respect of claims which are more than 10 years old, dating from the due date of the claim in the applicant Member State. 3. A Member State shall not be obliged to grant assistance if the total amount of the claims covered by this Directive, for which assistance is requested, is less than EUR 1500. 4. The requested authority shall inform the applicant authority of the grounds for refusing a request for assistance.’
19

In that regard, the referring court states that it follows from the Franco-Italian, Franco-British and Franco-Dutch conventions concluded for the avoidance of double taxation that, where a company subject to corporation tax in France receives dividends from a company established in another State party to one of those conventions which are subject to withholding tax in that State, the French Republic has the power to tax the former company on those dividends. However, that company is entitled to a tax credit which can be off-set against corporation tax, provided that that tax credit does not exceed the amount of French tax corresponding to such income. In that regard, the referring court explains that, under French law, and in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary in the double taxation convention concerned, the maximum amount of that tax credit must be determined by applying all the provisions of the General Tax Code on corporation tax, including those of Article 39(1), applicable by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 209(I) thereof. It follows, according to the referring court, that the maximum amount of the tax credit must be determined by deducting from the amount of the dividends distributed, before any withholding tax, and unless excluded by specific provisions, the justified charges relating to those dividends. Those expenses are incurred solely as a result of the acquisition, holding or disposal of the securities which produce the dividends, which are directly related to the receipt of the dividends and which do not result in an increase in assets.
14

Title II of Book IV of the Code de l’environnement (Environmental Code), relating to hunting, includes, inter alia, Chapter IV, entitled ‘Exercise de la chasse’ (Carrying on of hunting), itself subdivided into six sections, Section 3 being devoted to ‘modes et moyens de chasse’ (methods and means of hunting). Article L. 424‑4 of that code, which is found in that section, provides: ‘In the period in which the hunting season is open, the licence confers upon the holder the right to hunt by day, with guns, with horns and dogs or with birds of prey, in accordance with the distinctions drawn by the decrees of the Minister responsible for hunting. The day starts one hour before sunrise in the capital of the department and ends one hour after sunset. … In order to permit the strictly controlled selective hunting of small quantities of migratory birds, the Minister responsible for hunting shall authorise, under the conditions which he defines, the use of traditional hunting methods and resources that derogate from those authorised under the first paragraph. … Limes shall be applied one hour before sunrise and removed before 11 a.m. All other means of hunting, including aeroplane and motor vehicles, even as a means of flushing game, are prohibited. …’
33

As regards the question of the proportionality of that obligation, it should be recalled that, according to the information provided by the referring court, a lawyer providing services is required to communicate to the national courts the name of an Irish-qualified lawyer to assist him or her in the event that the proper representation of his or her client and the proper fulfilment of his or her duties to the judicial authority in question requires knowledge or advice which might be needed precisely because the visiting lawyer might have limited knowledge of what might turn out to be relevant aspects of national law, practice and procedure or ethics. However, according to that information, it is not necessary that the lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question be the lawyer on record or the lawyer who presents the case in court. After all, it is for the visiting lawyer and for the lawyer authorised to practise before the Irish court in question to define the precise role each of them is to play, the role of the latter consisting rather in being designated as the lawyer assisting the visiting lawyer.
8

Article 15 of Regulation No 3821/85 provided: ‘… 2. Drivers shall use record sheets or driver cards every day on which they are driving, starting from the moment they take over the vehicle. The record sheet or driver card shall not be withdrawn before the end of the daily working period unless its withdrawal is otherwise authorised. No record sheet or driver card may be used to cover a period longer than that for which it is intended. … 7. (a) Where the driver drives a vehicle fitted with recording equipment in conformity with Annex I, the driver must be able to produce, whenever an inspecting officer so requests: (i) the record sheets for the current week and those used by the driver in the previous 15 days; (ii) the driver card, if he or she holds one, and (iii) any manual record and printout made during the current week and the previous 15 days as required under this regulation and Regulation … No 561/2006. However, after 1 January 2008, the time periods referred to under (i) and (iii) shall cover the current day and the previous 28 days. (b) Where the driver drives a vehicle fitted with recording equipment in conformity with Annex IB, the driver must be able to produce, whenever an inspecting officer so requests: (i) the driver card of which he or she is [the] holder; (ii) any manual record and printout made during the current week and the previous 15 days as required under this regulation and Regulation … No 561/2006, and (iii) the record sheets corresponding to the same period as the one referred to in the previous subparagraph during which he or she drove a vehicle fitted with recording equipment in conformity with Annex I. However, after 1 January 2008, the time periods referred to under (ii) shall cover the current day and the previous 28 days. (c) An authorised inspecting officer may check compliance with Regulation … No 561/2006 by analysis of the record sheets, of the displayed or printed data which have been recorded by the recording equipment or by the driver card or, failing this, by analysis of any other supporting document that justifies non-compliance with a provision, such as those laid down in Article 16(2) and (3). …’
16

That court considers that the judgment of 4 October 2012, Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe (C‑115/11, EU:C:2012:606), which concerned a case in the main proceedings also involving Format and concerning events which occurred during the period at issue in the main proceedings, does not dispel the doubts relating to the interpretation of Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 raised by the present case. By that judgment, it is true that the Court of Justice ruled that that provision had to be interpreted as meaning that a person who, under successive employment contracts specifying the territory of more than one Member State as the place of employment, in practice, for the duration of each of those contracts, in fact pursues his or her paid employment activity in the territory of only one of those States at a time, is not covered by the concept of ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’ for the purposes of that provision. However, the facts at issue in the case in the main proceedings which gave rise to that judgment, namely that the person concerned had, on the basis of successive employment contracts, worked in several Member States and had been employed, for the duration of each of those contracts, exclusively in the territory of one of those Member States, differ from those at issue in the present case in the main proceedings in so far as the person concerned performed, under a single employment contract, paid employment activity, during two directly consecutive, successive periods, in the territory of two different Member States.
7

Article 23 of Regulation No 834/2007, entitled ‘Use of terms referring to organic production’, provides: ‘1. For the purposes of this Regulation a product shall be regarded as bearing terms referring to the organic production method where, in the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents, such a product, its ingredients or feed materials are described in terms suggesting to the purchaser that the product, its ingredients or feed materials have been obtained in accordance with the rules laid down in this Regulation. In particular, the terms listed in the Annex, their derivatives or diminutives, such as “bio” and “eco”, alone or combined, may be used throughout the Community and in any Community language for the labelling and advertising of products which satisfy the requirements set out under or pursuant to this Regulation. In the labelling and advertising of live or unprocessed agricultural products terms referring to the organic production method may be used only where, in addition, all the ingredients of that product have also been produced in accordance with the requirements laid down in this Regulation. 2. The terms referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be used anywhere in the Community and in any Community language for the labelling, advertising and commercial documents of a product which does not satisfy the requirements set out under this Regulation, unless they are not applied to agricultural products in food or feed or clearly have no connection with organic production. Furthermore, any terms, including terms used in trademarks, or practices used in labelling or advertising liable to mislead the consumer or user by suggesting that a product or its ingredients satisfy the requirements set out under this Regulation shall not be used. … 4. As regards processed food, the terms referred to in paragraph 1 may be used: (a) in the sales description, provided that: (i) the processed food complies with Article 19; (ii) at least 95% by weight, of its ingredients of agricultural origin are organic; (b) only in the list of ingredients, provided that the food complies with Article 19(1), 19(2)(a), 19(2)(b) and 19(2)(d); …’
39

In paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment of 10 February 2000, FTS (C‑202/97, EU:C:2000:75), the Court, interpreting Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, which was replaced by Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, held that only an undertaking engaged in providing temporary personnel which habitually carries out significant activities in the Member State in which it is established can benefit from the special rule laid down in Article 14(1)(a) and that, in order to determine whether that is the case, the competent institution of that Member State must examine all the criteria characterising the activities carried on by that undertaking. The Court stated that those criteria include, inter alia, the place where the undertaking has its seat and administration, the number of administrative staff working in the Member State in which it is established and in the other Member State, the place where posted workers are recruited and the place where the majority of contracts with clients are concluded, the law applicable to the employment contracts concluded by the undertaking with its workers, on the one hand, and with its clients, on the other hand, and the turnover during an appropriately typical period in each Member State concerned, it being understood that that list cannot be exhaustive and that the choice of criteria must be tailored to each specific case.
18

The Pravila službe v Slovenski vojski (Staff Regulations for the Slovenian Army) (Uradni list RS, No 84/09) defines the concept of ‘guard duty’ as follows: ‘Guard duty shall be regarded as a combat mission in peacetime …, during which a soldier on guard duty may also use weapons and lethal force in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the ZObr. Guard duty is performed in blocks of time (within the framework of a 7-day period with a permanent presence, that is to say a presence at the workplace 24 hours of the day) so that work can be organised properly. Guard duty shall be organised at military unit level, with those units also being required to ensure that the burden of performing guard duty is shared equally between the persons in the same unit. Guard duty has a particular military and strategic importance. Ensuring continuous operational availability is a fundamental task of the army in peacetime. In order to ensure an adequate level of preparation in peacetime, the army shall ensure permanent forces and permanent measures in readiness for intervention. The permanent forces shall be such as to ensure uninterrupted capacity and allow the armed forces to intervene militarily and non-militarily on land, sea and in the air in the Republic of Slovenia. Defence forces shall constitute a part of the permanent forces. Guard duty shall be performed by an armed unit or a group of military personnel which shall ensure the physical protection of persons, facilities, assets and territory. … The general duties of persons on guard duty shall be to protect and defend vigilantly what is entrusted to them (facilities, persons, etc.), not to allow their weapons to leave their hands and to be permanently ready to use them, not to leave the guard post until someone has replaced them, not to allow anyone to approach the guard post or protected building or move within a forbidden area aside from a superior, a deputy commandant, a guard commandant, a duty officer or a surveillance officer. Persons on guard duty must also, as is determined for certain guard posts, stop persons and maintain contact and communicate only with the guard commandant and other security bodies, and inform the guard commandant in the event of a disturbance or fire in the vicinity, where there is a threat to the protected object or forces due to natural disasters or other disasters, and when they become unwell or require any other form of assistance. The security forces shall ensure the security of facilities, documents, persons, weapons and military equipment, munitions and other material against various forms of threat. …’
13

Article 88 of Law 37/1992, entitled ‘Passing on of the tax’, states: ‘1. Taxable persons must pass on in full the amount of the tax to the person for whom the taxable transaction is carried out, and the latter must pay that tax provided that the tax is passed on in accordance with the provisions of the present Law, regardless of the terms which the parties have agreed between themselves. In the case of the taxable and non-exempt supply of goods or services to a customer which is a public body, the taxable person, when drawing up his financial proposals, even if these are verbal, shall be deemed in all cases to have included in those proposals the [VAT] which, nevertheless, must be passed on as a separate item, where appropriate, in the documents submitted for the purposes of collecting payment, while the overall amount agreed must not be increased as a result of showing the tax passed on. 2. The tax must be passed on in an invoice, under the conditions and in accordance with the criteria established by law. For that purpose, the amount passed on shall be shown separately from the taxable amount, including in the case of prices which are set officially, stating the rate of tax applied. Transactions which are determined by law shall be exempt from the above. 3. The tax must be passed on at the time when the relevant invoice is issued and delivered. 4. The right to pass on the tax shall be lost after one year has passed following the due date. 5. The person for whom the taxable transaction is carried out shall not be required to pay the [VAT] passed on to him before that tax becomes due. 6. Any disputes which may arise in connection with the passing on of the tax, relating to the lawfulness of passing on the tax and to the amount of tax, shall be treated as tax disputes for the purposes of the relevant complaint before a tax tribunal.’
17

The pension authority brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland). In support of its appeal, that body submits, first, that the judgment in Tomaszewska concerned the interpretation of Article 45(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, corresponding to Article 6 of Regulation No 883/2004, and not Article 46(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, which corresponds to Article 52(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, at issue in the main proceedings. Secondly, it argues that that judgment is applicable only in factual situations similar to those in the case which gave rise to that judgment. Thirdly, application of the interpretation of Article 45 of Regulation No 1408/71, as adopted in the judgment in Tomaszewska, in the case in the main proceedings would have the consequence that the non-contribution periods completed under the legislation of the Republic of Poland would be taken into account to a greater extent than as provided for under Polish law, leading to an increase in the proportion of the Polish social security system’s contribution to the benefits payable to the insured person. Fourthly, it is apparent from paragraph 2 of Decision No H6 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, of 16 December 2010, concerning the application of certain principles regarding the aggregation of periods under Article 6 of Regulation No 883/2004 (OJ 2011 C 45, p. 5), that the periods of insurance communicated by other Member States are to be aggregated by the Member State to which they are addressed without questioning their quality, so therefore the Polish social security authority cannot be required to take into account national insurance periods to a greater extent than as provided for under national law.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 –

Commission v Portugal (Vehicle tax)

(Case C‑169/20) ( 1 )

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 110 TFEU – Internal taxation – Discriminatory taxation – Prohibition – Second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States – Component of the registration tax calculated on the basis of carbon dioxide emissions – Failure to take into account the depreciation of the vehicle)

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – System for taxing imported second-hand vehicles – Component of the registration tax calculated on the basis of carbon dioxide emissions – Failure to take into account the depreciation of the vehicle – Not permissible

(Art. 110 TFEU)

(see paras 34-38, 41, 43, 46, 51, operative part 1)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by excluding the depreciation of the environmental component in the calculation of the applicable value of second-hand vehicles put into circulation in the Portuguese territory and purchased in another Member State when calculating the vehicle tax as provided for by the Código do imposto sobre veículos (code covering vehicle tax), as amended by the lei 71/2018 (Law No 71/2018), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 TFEU.

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.