ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The first paragraph of Article 61 and the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the reference to ‘one of the arrangements or situations referred to’ in Article 156 of that directive includes free zones.

Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the removal of goods from customs supervision in a free zone does not give rise to the chargeable event or make import value added tax chargeable if those goods did not enter the economic network of the European Union, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

In that context, it must nevertheless be noted that the Court has held that, in addition to the customs debt, there may also be a requirement to pay VAT in the case where, on the basis of the particular unlawful conduct which gave rise to the customs debt, it can be presumed that the goods entered the economic network of the European Union and, consequently, that they may have undergone consumption, that is, the act on which VAT is levied (judgment of 2 June 2016, Eurogate Distribution and DHL Hub Leipzig, C‑226/14 and C‑228/14, EU:C:2016:405, paragraph 65).

In this regard, as the Advocate General observed in points 67 to 69 of his Opinion, in the event that goods liable to import duties are removed from customs supervision in a free zone and are no longer located in that zone, it should, in principle, be presumed that they have entered the economic network of the European Union.

(see paras 54, 55, 57, operative part 2)
Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Exemptions—Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest—Supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education—Exclusion of exemption in the event of a risk of distortion of competition—Bodies governed by public law supplying those services—National legislation applying that exclusion to those bodies governed by public law—Lawfulness

(Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 132(1)(m) and 133, first para. and second para, (d))
Case C‑701/15

Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

v

Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA (SEA)

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Transport — Definition of ‘exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air’ — Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC — National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 13 July 2017

Approximation of laws — Procedures for awarding contracts in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17 — Scope — Allocation, including temporary allocation, of areas within airports to be used for the provision of groundhandling services for which no remuneration is to be paid by the manager of the airport — Precluded — National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of such areas — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/17, Art. 7; Council Directive 96/67, Art. 16(2))

Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not require a public selection procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation, including a temporary allocation, of areas within airports to be used for the provision of groundhandling services for which no remuneration is to be paid by the manager of the airport.

On the other hand, a body responsible for the management of an airport, such as SEA, is subject to the provisions of Directive 96/67.

It is apparent from Article 16(2) of Directive 96/67 that the managing body concerned must comply with the requirements laid down in that provision, under which the space available for groundhandling at an airport must be divided among the various suppliers of groundhandling services and self-handling airport users, including new entrants in the field, to the extent necessary for the exercise of their rights and to allow effective and fair competition, on the basis of the relevant, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory rules and criteria. That body is not obliged, however, to organise a prior tendering procedure.

(see paras 32, 33, 35, operative part)
Where, following the annulment of a decision adopted on the basis of provisions of the ECSC Treaty and finding a breach of Article 65 CS, the Commission readopts, after the expiry of that Treaty, the annulled decision on the legal basis of Article 7(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, the procedure leading to that new decision must comply with the rules of procedure laid down by that regulation, even if the procedure began before that regulation came into force.

Given that the procedure for replacing such a measure may, in principle, be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the Commission is not obligated to adopt a new statement of objections before readopting a decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS that was annulled on the ground that the Commission did not have power to adopt it on the basis of the ECSC Treaty, which was no longer in force at the date of adoption of that decision.

Under the procedural rules established by Regulation No 1/2003, as made explicit in Regulation No 773/2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 and 102 TFEU], it is, however, provided that the competition authorities of the Member States are to be invited to participate in the oral hearing which, upon the request of the addressees of the statement of objections, is to follow the issuing of that statement. It follows that the Commission is required, in application of Articles 12 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004, to give the parties the opportunity to develop their arguments during a hearing to which the competition authorities of the Member States were invited.

Having regard to the importance, in the context of a procedure provided for by Regulations No 1/2003 and 773/2004, of holding, at the request of the parties concerned, an oral hearing to which the competition authorities of the Member States are invited, in accordance with Article 14(3) of the latter regulation, failure to hold such a hearing constitutes infringement of an essential procedural requirement. In so far as the right to such a hearing, provided for by Regulation No 773/2004, was not respected, it is not necessary for the undertaking, the rights of which have been infringed in this way, to demonstrate that such infringement might have influenced the course of the proceedings and the content of the decision at issue to its detriment. Accordingly, the procedure is necessarily vitiated, regardless of any possible detrimental consequences for the undertaking concerned that could result from that infringement.

(see paras 26, 28, 31, 32, 36, 38, 42, 43, 45-47)
Case C‑656/15 P

European Commission

v

TV2/Danmark A/S

(Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Public broadcasting service — Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 9 November 2017

State aid — Meaning — Aid from State resources — Concept of State resources — Revenue of a public broadcaster deriving from the sale of its advertising space by another public undertaking — Revenue administered by public undertakings created, owned and appointed by the State — Included

(Art. 107(1) TFEU)

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the revenue of a public broadcaster deriving from the sale of its advertising space by another public undertaking constitutes State resources, provided that the entire distribution channel of that revenue ending with its transfer to that broadcaster is governed by the national legislation, under which public undertakings specially appointed by the State have the task of administering that revenue.

The concept of intervention ‘through State resources’, within the meaning of that provision, is intended to cover, in addition to advantages granted directly by a State, those granted through a public or private body appointed or established by that State to administer the aid. EU law cannot permit the rules on State aid to be circumvented merely through the creation of autonomous institutions charged with allocating aid.

Further, since the resources of public undertakings are subject to the control of the State and are therefore at its disposal, those resources fall within the scope of the concept of ‘State resources’, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The State is perfectly capable, by exercising its dominant influence over such undertakings, of directing the use of their resources in order, as the occasion arises, to finance specific advantages in favour of other undertakings. The fact that the resources concerned may be administered by entities that are distinct from the public authorities or that the source of those resources may be private is of no significance in that regard.

(see paras 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53)
Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, is not applicable to a contributory unemployment benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

In addition, the Court has ruled, first, that it is clear from its preamble that the Framework Agreement relates to the ‘employment conditions of part-time workers, recognising that matters concerning statutory social security are for decision by the Member States’ (judgment of 14 April 2015, Cachaldora Fernández, C‑527/13, EU:C:2015:215, paragraph 36).

It has found, second, that the term ‘employment conditions’, within the meaning of the Framework Agreement, covers pensions that depend on an employment relationship between the worker and the employer, excluding statutory social security pensions, which are determined less by that relationship than by considerations of social policy (judgments of 22 November 2012, Elbal Moreno, C‑385/11, EU:C:2012:746, paragraph 21, and of 14 April 2015, Cachaldora Fernández, C‑527/13, EU:C:2015:215, paragraph 37).

In the present case, it is clear from the case file before the Court that, although the sole source of finance for the unemployment benefit at issue is the contributions paid by the worker and the employer, those contributions are paid pursuant to national legislation and are not, therefore, governed by the employment contract between the worker and the employer. As a result, those contributions cannot be included in the concept of ‘employment conditions’.

(see paras 31-34, operative part 1)
3

Under the heading ‘Relative grounds for refusal’, Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 provides as follows: ‘1. Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered: ... (b) if, because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. ... 5. Furthermore, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark within the meaning of paragraph 2, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where it is identical with or similar to the earlier trade mark and is to be registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where in the case of an earlier Community trade mark the trade mark has a reputation in the Community and, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.’
16

Under Article 9 of Directive 2013/33, entitled ‘Guarantees for detained applicants’: ‘1. An applicant shall be detained only for as short a period as possible and shall be kept in detention only for as long as the grounds set out in Article 8(3) are applicable. Administrative procedures relevant to the grounds for detention set out in Article 8(3) shall be executed with due diligence. Delays in administrative procedures that cannot be attributed to the applicant shall not justify a continuation of detention. 2. Detention of applicants shall be ordered in writing by judicial or administrative authorities. The detention order shall state the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based. 3. Where detention is ordered by administrative authorities, Member States shall provide for a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention to be conducted ex officio and/or at the request of the applicant. When conducted ex officio, such review shall be decided on as speedily as possible from the beginning of detention. When conducted at the request of the applicant, it shall be decided on as speedily as possible after the launch of the relevant proceedings. To this end, Member States shall define in national law the period within which the judicial review ex officio and/or the judicial review at the request of the applicant shall be conducted. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately. 4. Detained applicants shall immediately be informed in writing, in a language which they understand or are reasonably supposed to understand, of the reasons for detention and the procedures laid down in national law for challenging the detention order, as well as of the possibility to request free legal assistance and representation. 5. Detention shall be reviewed by a judicial authority at reasonable intervals of time, ex officio and/or at the request of the applicant concerned, in particular whenever it is of a prolonged duration, relevant circumstances arise or new information becomes available which may affect the lawfulness of detention. …’
The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a turret system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was imported for the production of armoured fighting vehicles and was indeed used subsequently for that purpose, comes under heading 8710 of the Common Nomenclature if it is ‘principally’ intended for use on an armoured fighting vehicle, this being a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the turret system, without the end use to which it is put in the case at hand being determinant for the purpose of its classification. If that is not the case, that turret system must be classified, as a part or accessory of a ‘military weapon’, under subheading 9305 91 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.
8

Article 15 of the same regulation stated: ‘1. Before the end of each marketing year, the following shall be recorded: (a) a forecast of the production of A and B sugar, A and B isoglucose and A and B inulin syrup attributable to the marketing year concerned; (b) a forecast of the quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup disposed of for consumption within the Community during the marketing year concerned; (c) the exportable surplus obtained by subtracting the quantity referred to in (b) from the quantity referred to in (a); (d) an estimate of the average loss or revenue per tonne of sugar for export obligations to be fulfilled during the current marketing year. This average loss or revenue shall be equal to the difference between the total amount of refunds and the total amount of levies on the total tonnage of export obligations in question; (e) an estimate of overall loss or revenue, obtained by multiplying the surplus referred to in (c) by the average loss or revenue referred to in (d). 2. Before the end of the 2005/2006 marketing year and without prejudice to Article 10(3), (4), (5) and (6), the following shall be recorded cumulatively for the 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 marketing years: (a) the exportable surplus established on the basis of the definitive production of A and B sugar, A and B isoglucose and A and B inulin syrup and the definitive quantity of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup disposed of for consumption within the Community; (b) the average loss or revenue per tonne of sugar resulting from the total export obligations concerned, calculated using the method described in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(d) above; (c) the overall loss or revenue, obtained by multiplying the surplus referred to in (a) by the average loss or revenue referred to in (b); (d) the sum total of the basic production levies and the B levies charged. The estimate of overall loss or revenue referred to in paragraph 1(e) shall be adjusted by the difference between the amounts referred to in (c) and (d). 3. Without prejudice to Article 18(1), should the figures recorded under paragraph 1 and adjusted under paragraph 2 result in a foreseeable overall loss, then that loss shall be divided by the estimated production of A and B sugar, A and B isoglucose and A and B inulin syrup attributable to the current marketing year. The resulting amount shall be charged to manufacturers as a basic production levy on their production of A and B sugar, A and B isoglucose and A and B inulin syrup. … 8. Detailed rules for applying this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 42(2), and shall cover in particular: — the amounts of the levies to be collected, …’
8

Article 73 of the Teachers’ Charter provides: ‘1. Teachers employed full-time for an indefinite duration shall, after they have worked in the school for at least seven years, be granted convalescence leave by the school principal in order to follow a course of treatment prescribed by a doctor, for a maximum period of a year on a one-off basis ... ... 5. During the period of convalescence leave, the teacher shall retain the right to his basic monthly salary and any seniority bonus and the right to other employment benefits, including the social benefits referred to in Article 54. 6. No later than two weeks before the end of the convalescence leave, the school principal shall request the teacher’s presence for an examination in order to check that there are no contraindications against working in his post. ... 8. The teacher can be granted a further period of convalescence leave no earlier than one year after the date on which the previous period of convalescence leave ended. The total duration of convalescence leave taken by a teacher in his entire career shall not exceed three years. ... 10. The panel doctor treating the teacher shall decide on the need to grant him convalescence leave for the purpose of the prescribed treatment. An appeal against the decision referred to in the first sentence may be brought before the appellate body defined in the provisions adopted on the basis of paragraph 11, and in accordance with the procedure laid down in those provisions. ...’
31

Furthermore, the possibility for the licensee to seek, in the proceedings laid down in Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002, compensation for damage suffered by it is consistent with the objective set out in recital 29 of that regulation, consisting of ensuring that the rights conferred by a Community design can be enforced in an efficient manner throughout the territory of the European Union and also with the purpose of that provision and of Article 32(4) of that regulation, which is to give to the licensee the procedural means to bring proceedings in respect of the infringement and thus to defend those rights which have been conferred on it. To prohibit it from acting for that purpose in those proceedings would make it totally dependent, including in the case of an exclusive licence, on the rightholder of the design to obtain compensation for damage suffered by it and, should that right holder not bring proceedings, would, therefore, be detrimental to the exercise of those rights. Therefore, such a prohibition is contrary both to the objective of Regulation No 6/2006 and to the purpose of Article 32(3) and (4) of that regulation.
25

In those circumstances, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘The second sentence of Paragraph 15(1) of the [UStG] provides that where the extent of a commercial operator’s use of any intra-Community supply, importation or acquisition of goods for the purposes of his business is less than 10%, such supply, importation or acquisition should be deemed not to have been made for the purposes of his business — and to that extent excludes the right to deduct input VAT. That rule is based on Article 1 of the Authorising Decision, which authorises the Federal Republic of Germany, by way of derogation from Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive, to exclude expenditure on goods and services from the right to deduct VAT when the extent of the taxable person’s use of goods and services in question for his own private purposes or those of his employees, or, more generally, for non-business purposes, is greater than 90%. Does this authorisation — in accordance with its wording — apply only to the cases covered by Article 6(2) of the Sixth Directive (Article 26 of Directive 2006/112 as amended by Directive 2009/162), or does it also apply to all cases in which goods or services are used only partly for business purposes?’