ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Electronic commerce – Directive 2000/31 – Supply of services via the internet

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/31, Art. 5(1)(c))

Summary

Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2000/31 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider is required to supply to recipients of the service, before the conclusion of a contract with them, in addition to its electronic mail address, other information which allows the service provider to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner. That information does not necessarily have to be a telephone number. That information may be in the form of an electronic enquiry template through which the recipients of the service can contact the service provider via the internet, to whom the service provider replies by electronic mail except in situations where a recipient of the service, who, after contacting the service provider electronically, finds himself without access to the electronic network, requests the latter to provide access to another, non-electronic, means of communication.

(see para. 40, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 – Family reunification

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 7, first para.)

Summary

A Turkish national, who was authorised to enter the territory of a Member State as a child in the context of a family reunion, and who has acquired the right to take up freely any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council does not lose the right of residence in that State, which is the corollary of that right of free access, even though, at the age of 23, he has not been in paid employment since leaving school at the age of 16 and has taken part in government job-support schemes without, however, completing them.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Special conservation measures (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4(1) and (2), and Art. 4(4), as amended by Directive 92/43, Art. 6(2) to (4)) (see paras 21-23, 36, operative part 1)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (see para. 32)

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to establish and apply a coherent, specific and integrated legal regime capable of ensuring sustainable management and effective protection of areas designated as Special Protection Areas, in the light of the conservation objectives of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 4(4) of that directive, as amended by Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), in conjunction with Article 4(4) of that directive, as amended by Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Lack of protection for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – Existence of activities likely to damage the integrity of SPAs and have negative consequences for the objectives of conservation of SPAs and of the species for which the areas have been defined.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Ne bis in idem principle

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Art. 54)

Summary

The ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which aims to ensure that a person is not prosecuted for the same acts in the territory of several Contracting States on account of his having exercised his right to freedom of movement, does not fall to be applied to a decision by which an authority of a Contracting State, after examining the merits of the case brought before it, makes an order, at a stage before the charging of a person suspected of a crime, suspending the criminal proceedings, where the suspension decision does not, under the national law of that State, definitively bar further prosecution and therefore does not preclude new criminal proceedings, in respect of the same acts, in that State.

Therefore, a decision of a police authority which, while suspending criminal proceedings, does not under the national law concerned definitively bring the prosecution to an end, cannot constitute a decision which would make it possible to conclude that the trial of that person has been ‘finally disposed of’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the abovementioned Convention.

(see paras 40-41, 45, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture

–

Common organisation of the markets

–

Cereals

–

Sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (Commission Regulations No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, Art. 4a and Annex II, and No 2131/93, Art. 13(1)) (see para. 32, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) – Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 21), Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18), and of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 191, p. 76) – Reductions applicable for a moisture content higher than that of the standard quality – Application to the sale of maize.

Operative part

Operative part

The combined provisions of Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies and Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2486/92 of 27 August 1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a sale by tender of maize held by the international intervention agencies, the price reductions in relation to the moisture content laid down for durum wheat in Table II of Annex II to Regulation No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, do not apply.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which it is not deductible

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17(5), third subpara., and 19(1))

Summary

Member States are not obliged to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes where the proportion of input tax deductible is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods in (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of that directive.

Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive refers only to the proportion deductible under the first subparagraph of Article 17(5) of the directive and therefore lays down a detailed rule for calculating the proportion referred to in that provision only. It follows that, where a particular case is subject to a special scheme allowing for derogations, such as that in (a) to (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive, the rule for calculating the deductible proportion in Article 19 of the directive is inapplicable in that case. Thus, Member States are not obliged to apply the rounding up rule in that provision where they employ the methods of calculation set out in (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of that directive but may adopt their own rounding up rules, provided that they observe the principles underpinning the common system of value added tax.

(see paras 22, 25, 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 6(2)(a) and 17(2))

Summary

Articles 6(2)(a) and 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as not being applicable to the use of goods and services allocated to the business for the purpose of transactions other than the taxable transactions of the taxable person, activities such as those by which an association promotes the general interests of its members, as the value added tax due in respect of the acquisition of those goods and services, and relating to such transactions, is not deductible.

Article 6(2)(a) of the directive is not intended to establish a rule that transactions outside the scope of the system of value added tax may be considered to be carried out for ‘purposes other than’ those of the business within the meaning of that provision.

(see paras 38, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation requiring prior administrative authorisation based on the needs of the market for setting up independent outpatient dental clinics – Not permissible – Justification by reason of the general interest – None

(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)

Summary

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation under which authorisation is necessary for the setting up of a private health institution in the form of an independent outpatient dental clinic, and authorisation must be refused if there is no need for that outpatient clinic, having regard to the care already offered by contractual practitioners, where that legislation does not also subject group practices to such a system and is not based on a condition capable of adequately circumscribing the exercise by the national authorities of their discretion.

Such legislation is not appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objectives of maintaining a balanced high-quality medical service open to all and preventing the risk of serious harm to the financial balance of the social security system. First, that legislation does not pursue the stated objectives in a consistent and systematic manner, since it does not make the setting up of group practices subject to a system of prior authorisation, as is the case with new outpatient dental clinics, even though group practices generally offer the same medical services as outpatient dental clinics, they are subject to the same market conditions, and in many cases the patient will not notice any difference between them. Second, if a prior administrative authorisation scheme is to be justified even though it derogates from a fundamental freedom, it must be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria known in advance, in such a way as adequately to circumscribe the exercise of the national authorities’ discretion. That is not the case if the issue of authorisation to set up a new outpatient dental clinic is subject to the criterion of the number of patients per doctor, which is not fixed or brought in advance to the notice of the persons concerned in any way, or if the prior administrative authorisation scheme is based on a method which is liable to affect the objectivity and impartiality of the treatment of the application for authorisation.

(see paras 57-58, 63-66, 68-72, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC; Council Directive 2004/18) (see paras 68-70, 120, 122)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 100, 155, 166)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose or to transpose completely and/or correctly Article 1(2)(b), in conjunction with Annex I; the second sentence of Article 9(1); Article 9(8)(a)(i) and (iii); Article 23(2); Article 30(2) to (4); Article 31(1)(c); Article 38(1); point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 43; the second subparagraph of Article 44(2); Article 44(3) and (4); the first paragraph of Article 46; Article 48(2)(f); points (d) and (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 55(1); Article 55(3); the second and third subparagraphs of Article 67(2); the first paragraph of point (a) of Article 68; Article 72, and Article 74(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 of 19 December 2005, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Award of contracts

(Council Directive 92/50, Art. 29, first para.)

Summary

The first paragraph of Article 29 of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from laying down, in addition to the grounds for exclusion contained in that provision, other grounds for exclusion intended to guarantee respect for the principles of equality of treatment and transparency, provided that such measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

However, Community law precludes a national provision which, while pursuing legitimate objectives of equality of treatment of tenderers and transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, lays down an absolute prohibition on simultaneous and competing participation in the same tendering procedure by undertakings linked by a relationship of control or affiliated to one another, without allowing them an opportunity to demonstrate that that relationship did not influence their conduct in the course of that tendering procedure.

It would run counter to the effective application of Community law to exclude systematically undertakings affiliated to one another from participating in the same procedure for the award of a public contract. Such a solution would considerably reduce competition at Community level. Thus, where it extends the prohibition on participation in the same procedure for the award of a contract to situations in which the relationship of control between the undertakings concerned has no effect on their conduct in the course of such procedures, national legislation goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of ensuring the application of the principles of equal treatment and transparency. Such legislation, which is based on an irrebuttable presumption that tenders submitted for the same contract by affiliated undertakings will necessarily have been influenced by one another, breaches the principle of proportionality in that it does not allow those undertakings an opportunity to demonstrate that, in their case, there is no real risk of occurrence of practices capable of jeopardising transparency and distorting competition between tenderers.

(see paras 23, 28-30, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Capital duty charged on capital companies – Exempt transactions

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 7(1)(b))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Capital duty charged on capital companies

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 4(1)(g) and (h))

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Capital duty charged on capital companies

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 2(1))

Summary

1. A Member State which makes the exemption from capital duty for the transactions referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 69/335 subject to compliance by the company concerned with certain conditions, such as a formal opting for a special exemption regime and informing the tax authorities, fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303.

The exemption from capital duty for those transactions which come under that provision is mandatory and unconditional and is, for the companies concerned, a right the exercise of which must be ensured at national level in a straightforward and unambiguous manner.

(see para. 27, operative part)

2. A Member State which imposes capital duty on the transfer from another Member State to its territory of the effective centre of management or the registered office of capital companies which have not been subject to a similar tax in their Member State of origin fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303.

The criterion of ‘taxation’ or of being ‘subject to’ duty in the Member State of origin does not comply with the criterion of ‘capital company’, laid down in Article 4(1)(g) and (h) of Directive 69/335, and thus allows for taxation by way of capital duty in cases not provided for by that directive.

(see para. 37, operative part)

3. A Member State which subjects to capital duty capital allocated to commercial activities pursued in its territory by branches or permanent establishments of companies established in another Member State which does not apply a similar tax fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303.

The taxation in a Member State of such commercial transactions by capital companies having their effective centre of management in another Member State is contrary to Article 2(1) of Directive 69/335, which provides that transactions which are subject to capital duty may be taxed only in the Member State in which the capital company’s effective centre of management is situated at the time of those transactions.

(see para. 45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Public works concession – Publicity requirements

(Council Directive 93/37, Arts 3(1) and (4) and 11(3) and (6))

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and Article 11(3) and (6) of Directive 93/37 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, read in conjunction with Annex V thereto, when, after commencing a procedure with a view to the award of a public works concession for the construction, maintenance and operation of certain sections of motorways, it awards additional works, in particular the construction of additional traffic lanes and of a new tunnel on certain sections of motorways, without those works being included in the object of the contract for a public works concession, as described in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and in the tender specifications.

The object of the concession must be defined in the notice and in the tender specifications, which must contain the main object and additional objects of the contract, a description of the object of the concession and of the location of the works referred to in the concession, and the quantity and overall scope thereof. Even though it is acceptable for the concession-granting authority, having regard to possible particular features of the works which are the object of the concession, to leave some latitude to tenderers’ initiative in the formulation of their tenders, a reference in the tender specifications to the national rules concerning the possibility that tenderers may submit variants of their tenders is unlawful if the minimum conditions which those variants were to meet are not specified in the tender specifications.

Furthermore, it does not satisfy Directive 93/37 when, without any transparency, a public works concession contract is awarded which includes works referred to as ‘additional’ which of themselves constitute ‘public works contracts’ within the meaning of that directive and the value of which exceeds the threshold laid down therein. If the opposite were true, that would mean that those works referred to as ‘additional’ would avoid the advertising obligation and, consequently, any call for competition.

Moreover, the fact that a concessionaire does not itself carry out the additional works, but awards them to third-party undertakings, in accordance with the requirements of publicity laid down in Article 3(4) of Directive 93/37, does not exempt the concession-granting authority from its own obligations, Article 3 of that directive clearly requiring both the concession-granting authority and the concessionaire to comply with cumulative and not alternative advertising obligations.

(see paras 55, 64-66, 70-71, 76, 81 and operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑5/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/109/EC – Third-country nationals who are long-term residents – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

Operative part

The Court:

By not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.