ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Turnover tax ° Common system of value added tax ° Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States ° Matters covered ° Goods transported within the confines of a Member State ° Excluded

(Council Directives 77/388, Art. 22(8), and 91/680, Art. 28h)

Summary

Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388 with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule requiring accompanying documents to be drawn up in respect of goods transported within the confines of the Member State concerned.

The complete and exhaustive harmonization of the formalities which the Member States may impose on internal transactions for the correct collection of value added tax and for the prevention of evasion has not yet been carried out by the Community legislature and the latter, when laying down the rule that internal transactions and those between Member States should be treated equally, did not intend to prohibit a Member State from imposing formalities which are stricter on internal transactions than those applying to intra-Community trade.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. State aid ° Meaning ° Joint financing by a public fund enjoying a degree of latitude as regards measures accompanying social plans drawn up by undertakings experiencing employment problems ° Included ° Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1))

2. State aid ° Commission decision ° Legality to be assessed in the light of the information available when the decision was adopted

(EC Treaty, Arts 92 and 173)

Summary

1. Joint financing by a State, through a public fund which enjoys a degree of latitude enabling it to adjust its intervention, of measures accompanying social plans drawn up by undertakings experiencing employment problems constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty.

First, the social character of such assistance is not sufficient to exclude it outright from being categorized as aid for the purposes of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, which draws no distinction based on the causes or aims of State intervention but defines it in relation to its effects.

Secondly, since a fund of that kind enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to adjust its financial assistance, the contribution from that fund, even if not limited sectorially or territorially or by reference to a restricted category of undertakings, is liable to place certain undertakings in a more favourable situation than others by relieving them of certain legal obligations vis-à-vis their employees and thereby mitigating the charges which are normally included in their budgets.

2. The legality of a decision concerning aid is to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted. In particular, if, despite a specific request addressed to it, a Member State fails to provide the Commission with information enabling it to assess the nature and effects of State intervention in a social plan drawn up by an undertaking experiencing employment problems, the Commission is entitled to conclude that such intervention constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty where it appears that it is liable to mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of that undertaking.
Joined Cases C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 and C-47/96

Garage Molenheide BVBA and Others

v

Belgian State

References for preliminary rulings from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp, the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels and the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges

‛Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) — Scope — Right to deduction of VAT — Retention of balance of VAT due — Principle of proportionality’

Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 20 March 1997 I-7283

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 18 December 1997 I-7311

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonization of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Refund of excess — Retention where there is a presumption of fraud or other VAT debts — Whether permissible — Condition — Proportionality

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 18(4))

Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, which allows the Member States, where the total amount of deductions of input VAT exceeds the amount of tax due, either to carry the excess forward to the following period or to refund it, does not in principle preclude national measures allowing the competent fiscal authorities to retain, as a protective measure, refundable amounts of VAT where there are grounds for presumption of tax evasion or where those authorities claim that there is a VAT debt owing to them which is not apparent from the taxable person's returns and which the taxable person contests.

However, the principle of proportionality is applicable to such measures adopted by a Member State in the exercise of its powers relating to VAT, since, if those measures went further than necessary in order to attain their objective, they would undermine the principles of the common system of VAT and in particular the rules governing deductions which constitute an essential component of that system.

It is for the national court to examine whether or not the measures in question and the manner in which they are applied by the competent administration are proportionate. In the context of that examination, if the national provisions or a particular construction of them would constitute a bar to effective judicial review, in particular review of the urgency and necessity of retaining the refundable VAT balance, and would prevent the taxable person from applying to a court for replacement of the retention by another guarantee sufficient to protect the interests of the Treasury but less onerous for the taxable person, or would prevent an order from being made, at any stage of the procedure, for the total or partial lifting of the retention, the national court should disapply those provisions or refrain from placing such a construction on them. Moreover, in the event of the retention being lifted, calculation of the interest payable by the Treasury which did not take as its starting point the date on which the VAT balance in question would have had to be repaid in the normal course of events would be contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Case C-192/94





El Corte Inglés SA

v

Cristina Blázquez Rivero





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 10 de Sevilla)

«(Direct effect of unimplemented directives – Council Directive 87/102/EEC concerning consumer credit)»

Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 7 December 1995

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 7 March 1996

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Direct effect – Limits – Possibility of relying on a directive against an individual – Precluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.)

2.. Approximation of laws – Consumer protection in respect of consumer credit – Directive 87/102 – Possibility, in the absence of implementing measures, of relying on the directive in order to claim a right of action against a lender who is a private person – Precluded – Community competence under Article 129a – No effect

(EC Treaty, Arts 129a and 189, third para.; Council Directive 87/102, Art. 11)

3.. Community law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State of the obligation to transpose a directive – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.)

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

26 March 1996

((Non-life insurance – Council Directive 92/49/EEC – Scope))

In Case C-238/94,

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of José García and Others, represented by Laurence Fourrier, of the Montpellier Bar, Mutuelle de Prévoyance Sociale d'Aquitaine and Others, represented by Régis Waquet, the French Government, represented by Claude Chavance, the Spanish Government, represented by Gloria Calvo Díaz, the Finnish Government, represented by Tuula Pynnä, Legislative Adviser, Head of the Court of Justice Division in the Legal Service, acting as Agent, and the Commission, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, at the hearing on 6 February 1996,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 29 February 1996,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure — Justification — Not permissible — (EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Agreements between undertakings ° Concept ° Agreements between a parent company and its non-autonomous subsidiary companies ° Not within that concept ° Possible application of Article 86 of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Arts 2, 3(c) and (g), 85(1) and 86)

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissibility ° Rejection

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

1. When a parent company and its subsidiaries form a single economic unit within which the subsidiaries do not enjoy real autonomy in determining their course of action in the market, but carry out the instructions issued to them by the parent company which wholly controls them, the fact that the parent company' s policy, which consists essentially in dividing various national markets between its subsidiaries, might produce effects outside the ambit of the group which are capable of affecting the competitive position of third parties cannot make Article 85(1) applicable, even when it is read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 3(c) and (g) of the Treaty. On the other hand, such unilateral conduct could fall under Article 86 of the Treaty if the conditions for its application were fulfilled.

2. It follows from Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must specify the alleged flaws in the judgment of the Court of First Instance which it applies to have set aside and the legal arguments which specifically support that request.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to repeating or reproducing word-for-word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court; in reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for a re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice by virtue of Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Implementation by the Member States ° Transposition of a directive without legislative action ° Conditions ° Legal certainty guaranteed to individuals ° Inadequacy of case-law securing for individuals, in the absence of legislation, the rights provided for by the directive

(Council Directive 89/665, Art. 2)

2. Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Implementation by the Member States ° Directive 89/665 ° Obligation for Member States to organize for public contracts a procedure allowing the Commission to intervene in the event of an infringement of Community law ° Possibility for Member States to confer the responsibilities of contracting authorities on private persons ° Implementation unable to be secured by the mere application of Article 5 of the Treaty ° Need for implementing measures

(EC Treaty, Art. 5; Council Directive 89/665, Art. 3)

Summary

1. As far as the implementation of directives is concerned, it is particularly important, in order to satisfy the requirement for legal certainty, that individuals should have the benefit of a clear and precise legal situation enabling them to ascertain the full extent of their rights and, where appropriate, to rely on them before the national courts.

This is not the case where, in a Member State, case-law interprets national legislation in accordance with Directive 89/665 on review procedures relating to public contracts and the view is taken that this constitutes an adequate system of interim judicial protection for the purposes of the directive, but that legislation does not transpose correctly the requirements laid down in Article 2 of the directive as regards the power of review bodies in the Member States to take any interim measures with regard to the award of public contracts independently of any prior action.

2. In so far as private persons may be given the responsibilities of contracting authorities in connection with the award of contracts covered by Directive 89/665 on review procedures relating to public contracts, the obligation of bona fide cooperation and assistance to which the Member States are subject under Article 5 of the EC Treaty in order to facilitate the achievement of the Commission' s tasks is not sufficient to secure the implementation of Article 3 of the directive, which organizes the procedure for the intervention of the Commission with the Member State' s competent authorities and the contracting authority in question if it considers that a clear and manifest infringement of Community law has been committed during a procedure for the award of a public contract.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Turkish national employed for more than four years in a Member State who subsequently leaves his employment voluntarily - Right of residence to seek other employment - Condition - Duration of residence - Fixing within reasonable limits by legislation or, in the absence thereof, by national courts

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association, Art. 6(1), third indent)

Summary

The third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker who has been legally employed for more than four years in a Member State, who decides voluntarily to leave his employment in order to seek new work in the same Member State and is unable immediately to enter into a new employment relationship, enjoys in that State, for a reasonable period, a right of residence for the purpose of seeking new paid employment there, provided that he continues to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the Member State concerned, complying where appropriate with the requirements of the legislation in force in that State, for instance by registering as a person seeking employment and making himself available to the employment authorities. It is for the Member State concerned and, in the absence of legislation to that end, for the national court before which the matter has been brought to fix such a reasonable period, which must, however, be sufficient not to jeopardize in fact the prospects of his finding new employment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Raw tobacco - Premium system - Agricultural conversion rate applicable to the amount of the premium - Determination - Date of `delivery' - Definition

(Commission Regulations No 3478/92, Art. 10, and No 3477/93, Art. 1)

Summary

In connection with the premium system established by the common organization of the market in the raw tobacco sector, Article 1 of Regulation No 3477/93 concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be applied in that sector provides that the rate to be used for converting into national currency the amount of the premium paid by the processor to the producer depends on the date of `delivery' of the tobacco. That term, like the term `delivery under contract' used in Article 10 of Regulation No 3478/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium system, is to be interpreted, where the processor has concluded a cultivation contract with a group of producers, as referring to the delivery, by a producer or group of producers to the processor, of a quantity of tobacco to be processed in performance of the cultivation contract, and not to the individual producer's contribution of tobacco to the group.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Unemployment - Wholly unemployed frontier worker - Unemployment benefits received in the Member State of residence - Subsequent transfer of residence to the Member State of last employment - Entitlement to benefits in the Member State of last employment - Benefits received in the Member State of residence to be taken into account where the grant of an allowance following on from unemployment benefit is made subject to the receipt of unemployment benefit for a given period

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 13 and 71(1)(a)(ii))

Summary

The provisions relating to unemployment benefit in Regulation 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, and in particular Article 71(1)(a)(ii), read in conjunction with Article 13, are to be interpreted as meaning that where, in the State of last employment, the grant of an allowance following on from an unemployment benefit is made subject to the condition that the frontier worker concerned has received unemployment benefit for a given period, that State is required to take into account unemployment benefit received by that worker in the State in which he resides in accordance with Article 71(1)(a)(ii), as though that benefit had been received in the former State.

Article 71, while introducing the derogation by virtue of which a wholly unemployed frontier worker receives unemployment benefits in the State of residence as though that State were the State where he was last employed, does not affect the principle that the competent State for unemployed workers is the State of last employment. The latter's obligations are in fact merely suspended for so long as the unemployed worker lives in another Member State, so that where the person concerned, after receiving unemployment benefit in the State in which he is resident, settles in the Member State in which he was last employed, the latter must begin or begin afresh to assume its obligations under the regulation in relation to unemployment benefit.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive - Special scheme for travel agents - Determination of the place where services are deemed to be provided for tax purposes - Tour operator established in a Member State supplying services through an agent established in another Member State - Taxation in the Member State where the agent is established - Conditions

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 26(2))

Summary

Article 26(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a tour operator established in one Member State provides services to travellers through the intermediary of a company operating as an agent in another Member State, VAT is payable on those services in the latter State if that company, which acts as a mere auxiliary organ of the tour operator, has the human and technical resources characteristic of a fixed establishment.

Although the place where a supplier's business is established is the main fiscal point of reference, that reference would not lead to a rational result in that it takes no account of the actual place where the tours are marketed. On the other hand, the alternative approach of levying tax at the place of the fixed establishment from which those services are supplied, because it takes account of the possible diversification of travel agents' activities in different places within the Community and avoids the distortions of competition which might arise from reliance on the place where the supplier has established his business, in that undertakings trading in a Member State might be encouraged to establish their businesses in a Member State in which the services in question were exempted, is based on the actual economic situation, which constitutes a fundamental criterion for the application of the common system of value added tax.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Grounds of a judgment tainted by breach of Community law - Revocation of an administrative act - Conditions - Observance of a reasonable period - Observance of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Date to be taken into account with regard to the acquisition of legitimate expectations by the addressee of an administrative act - Appeal well founded

Summary

Revocation of a favourable administrative act is generally subject to very strict conditions. While it must be acknowledged that any Community institution which finds that a measure which it has just adopted is tainted by illegality has the right to withdraw it within a reasonable period, with retroactive effect, that right may be restricted by the need to fulfil the legitimate expectations of a beneficiary of the measure, who has been led to rely on the lawfulness thereof. The operative time for determining whether the addressee of an administrative act has acquired legitimate expectations is not the date on which the act was adopted or withdrawn but the date on which it was notified.

Legitimate expectations as to the legality of a favourable administrative act, once acquired, may not subsequently be undermined. In the circumstances of the case, there is no public-policy interest which overrides the beneficiary's interest in the maintenance of a situation which he was entitled to regard as stable. There is nothing to suggest that the appellant provoked the decision by means of false or incomplete information.

Accordingly, the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding that, whereas, on the date on which a decision was revoked nearly three months after it was adopted, the appellant was still entitled to rely upon the apparent legality of the decision and to claim that it should be upheld and that that reliance was subsequently, and very swiftly, undermined in such a way that at the date when the Parliament took the contested decision to revoke, the appellant was no longer entitled to entertain any legitimate expectation as to the legality of the decision revoked.