ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 28(2), first sentence, of Regulation No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation No 107/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies in the situation in which a foodstuff bearing a trade mark or brand name was, before 1 January 2005, marketed as a medicinal product and then, although having the same physical characteristics and bearing the same trade mark or brand name, as a foodstuff after that date.

Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 refers to products bearing a trade mark or brand name which must be regarded as nutrition or health claims within the meaning of that regulation. In that connection, ‘products’, within the meaning of that provision, must be understood as referring to ‘foodstuffs’ for the purposes of Regulation No 1924/2006. In those circumstances, Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be understood as referring only to foodstuffs bearing a trade mark or brand name which must be considered a nutrition or health claim within the meaning of that regulation. However, that provision is applicable only to products bearing a trade mark or brand name‘existing’ before 1 January 2005. Having regard to the wording of that provision, ‘existing’ must be understood as meaning that those products had, already before that date, the same substantive characteristics and bore the same trade mark or brand name.

(see paras 31, 37, 39, 46-48, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 —

National Exhibition Centre

(Case C‑130/15) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption — Article 13B(d)(3) — Transactions in respect of payments and transfers — Concept — Purchase of tickets for shows or other events — Payment by debit or credit card — ‘Card processing services’’

1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Bank transactions referred to in Article 13B(d)(3) — Payments and transfers within the meaning of that article — Criteria for determining such transaction (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)), para. 3) (see paras 35, 36, 38)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Bank transactions referred to in Article 13B(d)(3) — Definition — Purchase of tickets for shows or other events — Payment by debit or credit card — ‘Card processing services’ — Not included (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(3)) (see para. 52, operative part)

Operative part:

Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for in that article in respect of transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a service described as ‘processing of payment by debit or credit card’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out by a taxable person, the provider of that service, where an individual buys, via that provider, a ticket for a show or other event which the provider sells in the name and on behalf of another entity, which that individual pays for by debit or credit card.

( 1 ) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
By enacting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for an exemption from inheritance tax relating to the primary residence, which applies solely to nationals of EU Member States who are resident in the Member State concerned, that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

Tax legislation of that kind has the effect of reducing the value of the estate for the heir who fulfils all of the requirements, apart from the requirement of being permanently resident in that Member State, by depriving the person concerned of the exemption from inheritance tax and thereby resulting in that person being subjected to a heavier tax burden than that borne by an heir who is permanently resident there.

As regards the comparability of the situations of the categories of persons concerned, where, for the purposes of taxing immovable property acquired by inheritance and located in the Member State concerned, national legislation places non-resident and resident heirs on the same footing, it cannot, without infringing the requirements of EU law, treat those heirs differently in connection with that tax in respect of that immovable property. That is so in the present case.

Furthermore, no overriding reason in the public interest raised by the Member State concerned is capable of justifying a restriction on the free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 63 TFEU. That legislation is not appropriate for guaranteeing attainment, in a systematic and consistent manner, of the general social-interest objective of addressing housing needs, since the exemption laid down is not subject to the obligation that the heir establishes the inherited property as his primary residence or that he occupies that property at all. In addition, the need to prevent a reduction in tax revenues is neither among the objectives stated in Article 65 TFEU nor an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a restriction on a freedom instituted by the FEU Treaty.

(see paras 31, 36-38, 40, 43, 45, 50, operative part)
Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat is valid in the light of the freedom to conduct a business, as provided by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Although the labelling obligation laid down in that article is liable to limit the exercise of the freedom to conduct a business, since such an obligation constrains its addressee in a manner which restricts the free use of the resources at his disposal because it obliges him to take measures which may represent a significant cost for him and have a considerable impact on the organisation of his activities, the freedom to conduct a business is not absolute, but must be viewed in relation to its social function.

As regards the ability of the labelling obligation to attain the objectives pursued by the EU legislation, the legislature may consider that that obligation, on the one hand, ensures reliable information for the consumer as a result of the indication on the packaging, and, on the other, is likely to encourage consumers to buy poultrymeat, which improves the marketing prospects for that product and, consequently, producers’ incomes.

As regards the necessity of such legislation, the EU legislature may legitimately consider that legislation providing for the mere affixing of prices on shelves may not achieve the objectives pursued in a way as effective as Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008, since solely the indication of the total price and the price per weight unit enables, in the case of products whose packaging units may not have the same weight, adequate consumer information to be guaranteed. Such an obligation does not, moreover, appear disproportionate to the aims pursued, in particular as the indication of the total price and the price per weight unit, laid down by Article 5(4) of Regulation No 543/2008, is only one part of the information having to be included on the pre-packaging or on a label attached thereto under that provision.

(see paras 29, 30, 38, 39, 41, operative part 1)
Article 18(c) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2009/162 (VAT Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that, when a taxable person ceases to carry out a taxable economic activity, the retention of goods by that taxable person, where value added tax on such goods became deductible upon their acquisition, can be treated as a supply of goods for consideration and be subject to value added tax if the adjustment period laid down in Article 187 of the VAT Directive, has passed.

It follows, first, from Article 18(c) of the VAT Directive that the retention of goods by a taxable person when he ceases to carry out a taxable economic activity may be treated as a supply of goods for consideration where VAT on those goods became wholly or partly deductible upon their acquisition. Article 18(c) of the VAT Directive provides for no other condition, in particular in respect of a period of time following acquisition during which there is to be a retention of goods after cessation of the activity in order for it to be subject to tax. Moreover, in so far as concerns its application, Article 18(c) does not refer to the provisions on the adjustment of deduction laid down in Articles 184 to 192 of the VAT Directive, unlike the second subparagraph of Article 168a(1) of that directive, which refers to those provisions for the taxation of immovable property for private use under Article 26 of the directive. Finally, the adjustment of deductions, which is made, inter alia, where, after the VAT return is made, some change occurs in the factors used to determine the amount of VAT, and which aims to ensure that the deductions made closely reflect the use of assets for business purposes, is a retroactive corrective mechanism.

However, the taxation provided for in Article 18(c) of the VAT Directive is based on the occurrence of a new taxable transaction at the time the economic activity ceases. The taxation provided for in that article takes into account changes to the value of business assets throughout the duration of their use for business purposes. In the event of the cessation of the taxable economic activity, the taxable amount of the transaction is the value of the goods in question determined at the time of that cessation, which therefore takes into account the change in the value of those assets between their acquisition and the cessation. In order to achieve the objective of Article 18(c) of the VAT Directive, which is to avoid a situation where the final consumption of goods on which VAT became deductible is untaxed following the cessation of taxable economic activity, and to effectively eliminate any inequality for VAT purposes between consumers who acquire their goods from another taxable person and those who acquire their goods in the course of their business, taxation due under Article 18(c) of the VAT Directive must take place where goods on which VAT became deductible still have a residual value when the taxable economic activity ceases, regardless of the period of time between the date of purchase of those goods and the date on which the activity ceases.

(see paras 33-39)
2.

Agriculture — EAGGF and EAFRD financing — Support for rural development — Mechanism granting aid for early retirement — Regulations No 1257/1999 and No 1698/2005 — Conditions for granting — Exercise of an agricultural activity for commercial purposes before the surrender of the holding — Obligation to actually carry out the activity during the period prior to cessation (Council Regulations No 2328/91, Art. 5(1)(a), No 2079/92, Art. 5, point 1, second indent, No 1257/1999, Art. 10, and No 1698/2005, Art. 23(2) (see paras 39-45)
Case C‑289/15

Criminal proceedings

against

Jozef Grundza

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove)

(References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 7 — Condition of double criminality — Article 9 — Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality — National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 11 January 2017

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters — Grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement — Condition of double criminality — Review — Scope

(Council Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 7(3) and 9(1)(d))

Article 7(3) and Article 9(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of double criminality must be considered to be met, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the factual elements underlying the offence, as reflected in the judgment handed down by the competent authority of the issuing State, would also, per se, be subject to a criminal sanction in the territory of the executing State if they were present in that State.

(see para. 54, operative part)
Case C‑471/15

Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S

v

Skatteministeriet

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for taxing the profit margin — Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ — Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 18 January 2017

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Special schemes — Special scheme for taxing the profit margin — Concept of second-hand goods — Used parts from end-of-life motor vehicles, sold as spare parts — Supply of such parts by a taxable dealer — Included

(Council Directive 2006/112, Recital 51, and Arts 311(1)(1), 314(a) and 315)

Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that used parts, from end-of-life motor vehicles purchased by a vehicle reuse undertaking from a private individual, intended to be sold as spare parts, constitute ‘second-hand goods’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that the supplies of such parts, effected by a taxable dealer, are subject to the application of the profit margin scheme.

In that regard, as for the profit margin scheme, it is to be noted that, in the words of the second paragraph of Article 315 of Directive 2006/112, the profit margin of the taxable dealer is to be equal to the difference between the selling price charged by him for the goods and the purchase price.

The failure to apply those arrangements to spare parts, taken from end-of-life vehicles purchased from private individuals, would be contrary to the objective of the special margin scheme which seeks, as is apparent from recital 51 of Directive 2006/112, to avoid double taxation and distortions of competition between taxable persons in the area of second-hand goods (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 April 2004, Stenholmen, C‑320/02, EU:C:2004:213, paragraph 25; of 8 December 2005, Jyske Finans, C‑280/04, EU:C:2005:753, paragraph 37; and of 3 March 2011, Auto Nikolovi, C‑203/10, EU:C:2011:118, paragraph 47)

Making transactions for the supply of such spare parts effected by a taxable dealer subject to VAT would lead to double taxation, in so far as, first, the sale price of those parts necessarily already takes account of input VAT paid at the time of the vehicle’s purchase by a person falling within Article 314(a) of Directive 2006/112 and, secondly, neither that person nor the taxable dealer was able to deduct that amount (see judgment of 3 March 2011, Auto Nikolovi, C‑203/10, EU:C:2011:118, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited)

(see paras 38-40, 45, operative part)
Article 6(2)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is not intended to establish a rule that transactions that fall outside the scope of the system of value added tax (VAT) may be considered to be carried out for ‘purposes other than [business purposes]’ within the meaning of that provision. Such an interpretation would have the effect of rendering Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive meaningless.

Those conclusions are supported by the broad logic of the common system of VAT, under which a distinction is made between economic and non-economic activities according to criteria that are different from those distinguishing between business use and use for non-business purposes, in particular for private purposes.

Thus, where capital goods are used both for business and for private purposes, the person concerned has the choice, for the purposes of VAT, of (i) allocating those goods wholly to the assets of his business, (ii) retaining them wholly within his private assets, thereby excluding them entirely from the system of VAT, or (iii) integrating them into his business only to the extent to which they are actually used for business purposes.

By contrast, there is no such freedom of choice when considering whether or not goods are used for economic activities.

(see paras 31-34)
An electronic database may admittedly enable the extraction of any information contained therein. However, the possibility that a document may be created from such a database does not lead to the conclusion that the document concerned must be regarded as an existing document for the purposes of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The right of access to documents of the institutions applies only to existing documents in the possession of the institution concerned and Regulation No 1049/2001 may not be relied upon to oblige an institution to create a document which does not exist. It follows that an application for access that would require the institution concerned to create a new document, even if that document were based on information already appearing in existing documents held by it, falls outside the framework of Regulation No 1049/2001.

So far as documents of a static nature are concerned, in particular in paper form or in the form of a straightforward electronic file, it is sufficient to ascertain that the medium and its content exist in order to determine whether a document exists. On the other hand, the dynamic nature of electronic databases is scarcely compatible with that approach since a document which may be generated very easily from information already contained in a database is not necessarily an existing document within the strict sense of the term. Consequently, so far as electronic databases are concerned, the distinction between an existing document and a new document must be made on the basis of a criterion adapted to the technical specificities of those databases and in line with the objective of Regulation No 1049/2001, whose purpose, as is apparent from recital 4 and Article 1(a) thereof, is ‘to ensure the widest possible access to documents’.

In those circumstances, all information which can be extracted from an electronic database by general use through preprogrammed search tools, even if that information has not previously been displayed in that form or ever been the subject matter of a search by the staff of the institutions, must be regarded as an existing document. It follows that the institutions, to satisfy the requirements of Regulation No 1049/2001, may be led to establish a document from information contained in a database by using existing search tools. On the other hand, any information whose extraction from a database calls for a substantial investment must be regarded as a new document and not as an existing document. Accordingly, any information which would, in order to be obtained, require an alteration either to the organisation of an electronic database or to the search tools currently available for the extraction of information must be considered to be a new document.

(see paras 30, 31, 33-35, 37-40)
In the context of an action for annulment against a Commission decision adopted in 2011 concerning a reduction in financial aid granted between 2001 and 2003 under the Cohesion Fund, where the financial correction procedure did not begin until a date after the entry into force of Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and the hearing of the parties was even held nearly three and a half years after the date of applicability of Article 100 of that regulation, the General Court did not err in law in applying Article 100(5) of Regulation No 1083/2006.

It follows from Article 108 of that regulation that Article 100 thereof, which requires the Commission to take a decision on the financial correction within six months of the date of the hearing, is applicable from 1 January 2007, including to programmes approved before that date but still in progress.

In that regard, the wording of the second paragraph of Article 108 of that regulation leaves no room for doubt as to its meaning and scope. Thus, in accordance with its first sentence, the provisions which are listed therein apply from 1 August 2006 only for programmes for the period 2007 to 2013. However, under its second sentence, the other provisions shall apply from 1 January 2007 without any other stipulation and, accordingly, in general.

Among the other provisions, within the meaning of the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 108 of Regulation No 1083/2006, is Article 100 of that regulation, which therefore applies as such from 1 January 2007.

Such an application of that Article 100, entitled ‘Procedure’, is all the more justified since it complies with the principle that procedural rules are immediately applicable.

Furthermore, Article 105(1) of Regulation No 1083/2006 is intended to lay down the transitional scheme for structural funds which were approved on the basis of EU rules in force until 31 December 2006 but which continue beyond that date and closure of which takes place at a later date.

In so doing, the transitional scheme concerns the substantive rules applicable in that regard, as, moreover, is clear from the use of the terms ‘assistance’ and ‘project’ in that Article 105, in the same way as the content of paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof, and not rules of a procedural nature, which must be governed by the rule of principle.

Consequently, that transitional provision set out in Article 105 of Regulation No 1083/2006 does not apply to the procedural time limit with which the Commission is required to comply when it adopts a decision on financial corrections under that regulation.

(see paras 89-96, 98)