ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Combating late payments in commercial transactions – Directive 2000/35

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 4(1))

Summary

According to Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, which provides that Member States are to provide in conformity with the applicable national provisions designated by private international law that the seller retains title to goods until they are fully paid for if a retention of title clause has been expressly agreed between the buyer and the seller before the delivery of the goods, read in conjunction with recital 21 in the preamble to that directive, the Community legislature considered it desirable to ensure that creditors are in a position to exercise a retention of title on a non-discriminatory basis throughout the Community if the retention of title clause is valid under the applicable national provisions designated by private international law. The availability of such a clause to creditors may be considered to be a specific contribution to combating late payments in commercial transactions.

In view of the wording of Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35 and the purpose of that directive, it cannot be inferred from that provision that it is intended to affect any rules other than those which expressly provide, firstly, that it is possible for the seller and the buyer expressly to agree a retention of title clause before the goods are delivered and, secondly, that it is possible for the seller to retain title to the goods until they have been paid for in full. Accordingly, the national rules which concern the enforceability of retention of title clauses against third parties, whose rights are not affected by Directive 2000/35, are still governed exclusively by the national legal orders of the Member States.

(see paras 28-30)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs – Directive 2000/13

(Directive 2000/13 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 2, 3 and 12)

Summary

Articles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs are to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which makes it possible for an operator, established in that Member State, which distributes a pre-packaged alcoholic beverage to be delivered as such within the meaning of Article 1 of that directive, produced by an operator established in another Member State, to be held liable for an infringement of that provision, established by a public authority, resulting from the producer’s inaccurate statement on the product label of the alcoholic strength by volume of the product and, consequently, to be penalised by an administrative fine, even where, as the mere distributor, it simply markets the product as delivered to it by the producer.

National legislation which, where there is infringement of that obligation with regard to labelling, provides for liability not only on the part of the producers, but also of the distributors, is not such as to compromise achievement of the result prescribed by that directive. On the contrary, such legislation, inasmuch as it gives a wide definition of the circle of operators which may be held liable for infringements of the obligations with regard to labelling pursuant to Directive 2000/13, is manifestly such as to contribute to the achievement of the aim pursued by that directive of informing and protecting the ultimate consumer of foodstuffs.

Moreover, in principle it is for national law to lay down the methods by which a distributor may be held liable for infringement of the obligation as regards labelling imposed by Articles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13 and, in particular, to regulate the apportionment of respective liability between the different operators involved in the marketing of the foodstuff in question.

(see paras 49-50, 59-60, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States

(Art. 249, third para., EC)

2. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337

(Council Directive 85/337, Art. 6(2) and (3))

Summary

1. Under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, Member States have the obligation, when they transpose a directive, to ensure that it is fully effective, whilst retaining a broad discretion as to the choice of methods. The fact that under another directive the levying of fees is expressly permitted cannot found a general presumption that the Community legislature has wished to allow fees only when it expressly so provides. The argument that a State cannot charge the disputed fees because the directive in question does not contain any provision expressly authorising this cannot be reconciled with the freedom of choice under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC.

(see paras 26-28)

2. The levying of an administrative fee is not in itself incompatible with the purpose of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. It is apparent from that recital, as it is from Article 6(2) of that directive, that one of the directive’s objectives is to afford the members of the public concerned the opportunity to express their opinion in the course of development consent procedures for projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. In that regard, Article 6(3) allows Member States to place certain conditions on participation by members of the public concerned by the project. Thus, under that provision, the Member States may determine the detailed arrangements for public information and consultation and, in particular, determine the public concerned and specify how that public may be informed and consulted.

A fee cannot, however, be fixed at a level which would be such as to prevent the directive from being fully effective, in accordance with the objective pursued by it. This would be the case if, due to its amount, a fee were liable to constitute an obstacle to the exercise of the rights of participation conferred by Article 6 of Directive 85/337.

(see paras 37-38, 42-44)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Examination by the Commission – Guidelines adopted by the Commission and accepted by the Member States – Binding effect (Art. 88(1) EC) (see para. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations under Community law – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on national considerations – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

3. 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. 11)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to communicate, before 1 July 2001 and no later than 30 June 2002, annual reports on all existing State aid schemes during 2000 and 2001 in the agricultural sector – Article 88(1) EC and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) – Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2000/C/28/02) (OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2; corrected version OJ 2000 C 232, p. 19)

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate, before 1 July 2001 and no later than 30 June 2002, annual reports on all State aid schemes in the agricultural sector existing during 2000 and 2001, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 88(1) EC and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC], as implemented by the Commission communication entitled ‘Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector’, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 1 February 2000;

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. 5

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (OJ 2000 L 302, 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 Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland 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 paras 12-13

)

Subject of the case

Re :

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40).

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 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, 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

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. 13

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to apply the provisions on public lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of 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 paras 9, 14, 18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Articles 16(5) and (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) – Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances – Failure to determine minimum qualification requirements for the personnel responsible – Failure to report to the Commission on the programmes related to the level of qualification required.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary for determining minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, by failing to submit to the Commission, by 31 December 2001, a report with information on the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed and by failing to take all the preventive measures necessary to ensure that fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg is checked annually for leakages, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

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

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Special non-contributory benefits

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 4(2a) and (10a), and Annex IIa)

Summary

A supplementary allowance under French legislation from the Fonds de solidarité viellesse (Old-age Solidarity Fund), which augments an old-age pension and is intended to ensure a minimum means of subsistence for its recipient where the retirement pension is insufficient, and which is mentioned, under the heading ‘France’ in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, constitutes a special benefit.

Examination of the method of financing the supplementary allowance, on the basis of the information in the file submitted to the Court, shows that there is no sufficiently identifiable link between general social contributions, from which the resources of the Fonds de solidarité viellesse esssentially come, and the benefit concerned, which leads to the conclusion that the supplementary allowance is non-contributory.

First, it is apparent that that Fund, which makes available the resources necessary for the supplementary allowance, has the task, according to the relevant national legislation, of assuming responsibility for non-contributory old-age benefits covered by national solidarity, of which the supplementary allowance is only a limited part. Second, whilst it is true that general social contributions in respect of earned income and substitute income constitute a substantial part of the Fund’s revenue, the fact remains that that revenue also comes from other contributions and levies of a fiscal nature. Third, general social contributions in respect of earned income and substitute income serves to finance not only the Fund but also other social schemes. Fourth, the conditions for grant and the methods of calculating the supplementary allowance are not fixed by reference to any contribution as regards its recipients.

However, it is for the national court to confirm the accuracy of the factors set out above in order to determine conclusively whether that benefit is contributory or non-contributory.

(see paras 33-34, 48-53, 61, 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. 13B(d)(2))

Summary

Article 13B(d)(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 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 concept of assumption of obligations excludes from the scope of that provision obligations which are non-pecuniary, such as the obligation to renovate a property.

A comparative analysis of the different language versions of that provision reveals terminological differences regarding the concept of assumption of obligations. In certain language versions, such as the German, French and Italian, that expression has a general meaning, whereas in others, such as English and Spanish, it clearly refers to pecuniary obligations.

The exemption provided for in Article 13B(d)(2) of the Sixth Directive concerns, in addition to the assumption of obligations, the negotiation and assumption of credit guarantees or any other security for money and the management of credit guarantees. It is common ground that all those transactions are, by their nature, financial services. The same conclusion is also valid for the other transactions set out in subparagraphs 1 and 3 to 6 of Article 13B(d) of that directive. The assumption of the obligation to renovate a building is not, by its nature, a financial transaction within the meaning of Article 13B(d) of the Sixth Directive and therefore it does not come within the scope of that provision.

(see paras 18, 21-23, 26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

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

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

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 7(1) and 10)

Summary

1. Article 7(1) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303, must be interpreted to mean that, in the case of a State which joined the European Communities with effect from 1 January 1986, in the absence of derogating provisions in the Act of Accession of that State or in another Community document, the mandatory exemption for which that provision provides applies to all transactions falling within the scope of Directive 69/335 which, on 1 July 1984, were exempted, in that State, from capital duty or which were subject to that duty at a reduced rate of 0.50% or less.

The clear and unconditional obligation, on the part of Member States, to exempt those transactions, is also binding on the Member State concerned as from 1 January 1986, the date on which its accession to the Communities took effect. That date coincides with the time‑limit set for transposition of the substantial amendments made to Directive 69/335 by Directive 85/303, so that the only version of Directive 69/335 which applies to that Member State is that established by Directive 85/303.

The date of 1 July 1984, which is taken as the relevant date under Article 7(1) of Directive 69/335, is equally applicable to that Member State. In the case of accession, a reference to a date laid down in Community law, in the absence of a provision to the contrary in the Act of Accession or some other Community document, applies equally to the State which is acceding, even if that date is earlier than the date of its accession.

(see paras 28, 30, 32-33, operative part 1)

2. In the case of a State which joined the European Communities with effect from 1 January 1986, Articles 7(1) and 10 of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303, prohibit the introduction, after 1 January 1986, of stamp duty on a transaction increasing share capital falling within the scope of Directive 69/335 which, on 1 July 1984, was exempted from that duty under national law.

(see para. 46, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 – Family reunification – Child of a Turkish worker having acquired the right of free access to employment

(Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 59; Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Arts 7, first para., and 14(1))

Summary

It follows from both the scheme and the objective of Decision No 1/80 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey that a Turkish national, who was authorised while he was a child to enter the territory of a Member State in order to join his family and who has acquired the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, loses the right of residence in the host Member State which is a corollary of that right of free access only in two situations, that is:

– where he constitutes, on account of his own conduct, a genuine and serious threat to public policy, public security or public health, in accordance with Article 14(1) of that decision, or

– if he leaves the territory of the Member State concerned for a significant length of time without legitimate reason,

even though he is over 21 years of age, is no longer dependent on his parents, but lives independently in the Member State concerned, and was not available to join the labour force for several years because he was during that period serving an unsuspended sentence of imprisonment.

Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the requirements of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement, whereby Turkey may not receive more favourable treatment than that applicable between Member States.

(see paras 54, 57, 75, operative part)