ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 CE) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships (OJ 2002 L 324 p. 53)

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 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 6)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of 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. 7)

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 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of 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. 7)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, 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 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Excise duty imposed on motor vehicles by reason of their first registration in national territory

(Arts 25 EC and 90 EC)

2. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Excise duty imposed on motor vehicles by reason of their first registration in national territory

(Art. 90, first para., EC)

3. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Excise duty imposed on motor vehicles by reason of their first registration in national territory

(Art. 28 EC; Council Directive 92/12, Art. 3(3), first para.)

Summary

1. An excise duty which affects all passenger vehicles not by reason of the fact that they cross the frontier but by reason of their first registration in the territory of the Member State does not constitute a customs duty on imports or a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25 EC, but comes under the general system of internal taxation on goods and must therefore be examined in the light of Article 90 EC.

(see paras 24-25, operative part 1)

2. The first paragraph of Article 90 EC is to be interpreted as precluding an excise duty imposed on passenger vehicles by reason of their first registration in the territory of a Member State, in so far as the amount of the duty imposed on certain second-hand vehicles acquired in another Member State exceeds the residual amount of the same duty incorporated into the purchase price of similar vehicles already registered in the Member State which introduced that duty, which it is for the national court to verify.

(see para. 41, operative part 2)

3. Article 28 EC does not apply to a rule of national law requiring the submission of a simplified declaration within five days of the day of acquisition of any passenger vehicle from another Member State not yet registered in national territory where that requirement is indissociably linked to the obligation, on the acquirer, to pay an excise duty on first registration of the vehicle in national territory. Since the obligation to make the declaration is only the corollary of the vehicle being subject to excise duty, it does not fall within the scope of Article 28 EC, the scope of which does not extend to obstacles to trade covered by other specific provisions of the Treaty, such as obstacles of a fiscal nature or those having an effect equivalent to customs duties.

Similarly, the first subparagraph of Article 3(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, which under certain conditions authorises Member States to introduce or maintain taxes which do not give rise in intra-community trade to formalities linked to the crossing of a frontier, does not apply and therefore cannot preclude such legislation, since that formality is linked not to the crossing of a frontier but to the obligation to pay excise duty.

(see paras 47, 49-53, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of 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)

2. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a)

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 12(1)(b) and (d), and Annex IV(a))

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. In an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and any subsequent changes cannot be taken into account.

(see para. 17)

2. The transposition of Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which provides that the Member States are to take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to that directive in their natural range, requires those Member States not only to adopt a comprehensive legislative framework but also to implement concrete and specific protection measures. Similarly, the system of strict protection presupposes the adoption of coherent and coordinated measures of a preventive nature.

(see paras 28-30)

3. In an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought under Article 226 EC it is for the Commission to prove that the obligation has not been fulfilled, without being able to rely on any presumption.

(see para. 39)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81

(Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8(1)(c), first subpara.)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81

(Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8(1)(c), first subpara.)

Summary

1. Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils provides in Article 8(1) for a number of obligatory exemptions, such as those in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)(c) relating to mineral oils supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of navigation within Community waters, including fishing, other than in private pleasure craft.

The term ‘Community waters’, within the meaning of that provision, relates to all waters which can be used by all sea-going vessels, including those which have the greatest capacity, capable of travelling maritime waterways for commercial purposes. It thus includes certain internal waterways.

Vessels appropriate for navigation for commercial purposes on maritime waters can also pursue those purposes on certain internal waterways as far as certain sea ports, although they are not situated on the coast. To exclude from the scope of obligatory exemption the navigation thus practised from the moment when it is carried out on those waterways towards sea ports would harm intracommunity trade since such an exclusion, in placing economic operators concerned by such navigation at a disadvantage, would risk diverting some of that sea traffic away from those ports. It would thus place the operators at a disadvantage in relation to those who operate in coastal ports.

(see paras 19, 30, 32, operative part 1)

2. Manoeuvres carried out by a hopper dredger during its operations of pumping and discharge of materials, that is to say, journeys inherent in the carrying out of dredging activities, come within the scope of the term ‘navigation’ as used in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils.

The purpose for which the journey is effected is irrelevant since it concerns navigation involving a provision of services for consideration. A hopper dredger with a propulsion system enabling it to be autonomous in its movements has the technical characteristics necessary for navigation allowing it to carry out such a provision of services.

(see paras 37-38, 40, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital – Restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural property

(Art. 56 EC)

Summary

Article 56 EC precludes national legislation from laying down as a condition for acquiring an agricultural property the requirement that the acquirer take up his fixed residence on that property for eight years, irrespective of particular circumstances relating to individual characteristics of the agricultural land concerned.

It can be accepted that national legislation containing such a requirement, which seeks to avoid the acquisition of agricultural land for purely speculative reasons, and which is thus likely to facilitate the preferential appropriation of that land by persons wishing to farm it does pursue a public interest objective in a Member State in which agricultural land is a limited natural resource. However, the residence requirement constitutes a measure which goes beyond what is necessary to attain such an objective. First, it turns out to be particularly restrictive in that it restricts not only the free movement of capital but also the right of the acquirer to choose his place of residence freely, guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and protected in the Community legal order, thereby adversely affecting a fundamental right. Nor is there anything to indicate that other measures less restrictive than that requirement could not have have been adopted in order to attain the objective pursued. Such a requirement, a fortiori when accompanied by a condition that residence be maintained for several years, goes beyond what could be regarded as necessary.

(see paras 33-37, 41-42, 50, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Public undertakings and undertakings to which the Member States grant special or exclusive rights – Article 86 EC – Scope

(Art. 86(1) EC)

2. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works, supply and service contracts – Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37 – Scope

(Council Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37)

Summary

1. Article 86(1) EC, according to which, in the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States are not to enact or maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in the Treaty, in particular to those rules provided for in Articles 12 EC and 81 EC to 89 EC inclusive, has no independent effect in the sense that it must be read in conjunction with the relevant rules of the Treaty.

(see paras 39-40)

2. Directives 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and 93/37 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts do not preclude a body of rules which enables a public undertaking acting as an instrument and technical service of several public authorities, to execute operations without being subject to the regime laid down by those directives, since, first, the public authorities concerned exercise over that undertaking a control similar to that which they exercise over their own departments, and, second, such an undertaking carries out the essential part of its activities with those same authorities.

(see paras 54-55, 60, 62-65, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC)

Summary

Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes income tax legislation of a Member State which, for the assessment of the tax base in the absence of evidence provided by the interested parties or by the administration, lays down minimum tax bases only for non‑resident taxpayers.

Income derived from self-employed activity in the territory of the Member State concerned, whether by a resident taxpayer or a non-resident taxpayer, falls within the same category of income. Moreover, the situation of a resident taxpayer and that of a non-resident taxpayer present, for the tax authorities concerned, the same difficulties, with the result that those two categories of taxpayers are in an objectively comparable position. In those circumstances, a distinction based on the criterion of residence constitutes indirect discrimination, since it is liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States, non-residents being in the majority of cases non-nationals.

(see paras 26, 28, 32, 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(j))

Summary

The activities of an individual acting in a freelance capacity, consisting of providing assistance with schoolwork and also running ceramics and pottery courses in adult education centres, can benefit from the VAT exemption under Article 13A(1)(j) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes in respect of ‘tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education’ only where such activities consist of tuition given by a teacher on his own account and at his own risk, and covering school or university education. It is for the referring court to verify whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

(see para. 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



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 Community

(Council Directive 86/560, Art. 2(2))

Summary

Article 2(2) of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560 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, pursuant to which Member States may make refund of the tax conditional upon the granting by third States of comparable advantages regarding turnover taxes, must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘third States’ referred to in that provision include all third States and that that provision is without prejudice to the ability and the responsibility of the Member States to comply with their obligations under international agreements such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

Article 2(2) of the Thirteenth Directive, in common with all the other provisions of that directive, clearly refers to all third States without any distinction.

Moreover, in so far as that provision leaves each Member State free to decide in respect of each third State whether or not it would be appropriate to impose a condition of reciprocity, it enables Member States, to the extent to which they enter into agreements with certain third States which limit that discretion, to adapt their legislation so as to reflect those agreements. In those circumstances, the obligation to interpret secondary Community law, in so far as is possible, in conformity with international agreements concluded by the Community, does not require the expression ‘third States’ appearing in that provision to be interpreted restrictively so as to apply only to third States which cannot invoke the most-favoured-nation clause contained in Article II(1) of the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

(see paras 15, 18-21, operative part)
Case C-424/05 P

Commission of the European Communities

v

Sonja Hosman-Chevalier

‛Appeal — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down by Article 4(1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of ‘work done for another State’’

Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 15 March 2007 I-5029

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 June 2007 I-5051

Summary of the Judgment

Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

The concept of ‘State’ for the purposes of the last sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations necessarily includes the permanent representation of a Member State to the European Union. Therefore, the members of the staff of such a permanent representation, including its administrative and technical staff, must, since they are part of the structures of that representation, be considered to be working for the Member State concerned and, consequently, to be in a situation of ‘expatriation’ within the meaning of the above provision, regardless of the particular and specific functions carried out within that body, since entitlement to the expatriation allowance is not conditional upon the existence of a direct legal tie linking the person concerned and the State at issue. Such an interpretation is, moreover, consistent with the autonomy enjoyed by the Member States in the internal organisation of their permanent representations. It is for each Member State to determine which bodies will form part of its permanent representation and to identify the public interests which the various bodies coexisting with the permanent representation must promote in relations with the Community institutions.

(see paras 40, 41, 44-46)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Measures intended to achieve the single market – Introduction of new national provisions in derogation

(Art. 95(4) and (5) EC)

2. Approximation of laws – Measures intended to achieve the single market – Introduction of new national provisions in derogation

(Art. 95(5) EC)

Summary

1. In the light of the specific features of the procedure laid down in Article 95(5) EC, the similarities of that procedure with the one laid down in Article 95(4) EC and the common objective of those two paragraphs, which is to enable Member States to obtain derogations from harmonisation measures, the Commission is not required to observe the right to be heard before taking a decision under Article 95(5) EC.

It is not apparent, first, from the wording of Article 95(5) EC, that the Commission is required to hear the notifying Member State before it takes its decision to approve or reject the national provisions in question. Taking into consideration the specific features of that procedure, the authors of the Treaty merely laid down, in Article 95 EC, the conditions to be fulfilled in order to obtain a Commission decision, the period within which the Commission must issue its decision to approve or reject and possible extensions to that period.

Next, the procedure laid down in Article 95(5) EC, like indeed the one laid down in Article 95(4) EC, is initiated not by a Community or national institution but by a Member State, and the Commission’s decision is taken only in response to that initiative. In its request, the Member State is at liberty to comment on the national provisions it asks to have adopted, as is quite clear from Article 95(5) EC, which requires the Member State to state the grounds on which its request is based.

(see paras 37-38, 43)

2. The lawfulness of national measures notified under Article 95(5) EC is closely linked to the assessment of the scientific evidence put forward by the notifying Member State.

That provision requires that the introduction of national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure be based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment made necessary by reason of a problem specific to the Member State concerned arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, and that the proposed provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them be notified to the Commission.

Those conditions are cumulative in nature and must therefore all be satisfied if the derogating national measures are not to be rejected by the Commission.

(see paras 56-58)