ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, so far as concerns action of the Member States, is defined in Article 51(1) thereof, according to which the provisions of the Charter are addressed to Member States only when they are implementing EU law. Article 51(1) of the Charter confirms the Court’s settled case-law, which states that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations. Where a legal situation does not fall within the scope of Union law, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on it and any Charter provisions relied upon cannot, of themselves, form the basis for such jurisdiction.

First of all, national legislation setting judicial and registration fees for the lodging of an appeal in employment law cases which governs, in general, certain fees connected with the administration of justice, is not intended to implement provisions of EU law. In addition, EU law does not contain any specific rules in that area or any which are likely to affect that national legislation.

(see paras 28-30, 32, operative part)
Case C‑205/13

Hauck GmbH & Co. KG

v

Stokke A/S and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

‛Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 3(1)(e) — Refusal or invalidation of registration — Three-dimensional trade mark — Adjustable ‘Tripp Trapp’ children’s chair — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods — Sign consisting of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 18 September 2014

Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Refusal or invalidation of registration — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the very nature of the goods — Ground for refusal applicable to a sign with one or more essential characteristics which are inherent to the generic function or functions of the product (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(e), 1st indent) Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Refusal or invalidation of registration — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape which give substantial value to the goods — Ground for refusal applicable to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of a product with several characteristics each of which may give that product substantial value (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(e), 3rd indent) Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Refusal or invalidation of registration — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the very nature of the product — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape which gives value to the goods — No combined application of the grounds for refusal (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(e), 1st and 3rd indents)
Article 8 of Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste, as amended by Directive 2011/97, does not preclude such a national legislative provision which provides that, in derogation from the rule that no landfills may be authorised except on the sites provided for in the waste management plan required by Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 on waste, landfills authorised before that waste management plan entered into force may, after such entry into force, be granted new permits in respect of the plots covered by the authorisation and which may be based on Article 14 of Directive 1999/31 and apply to landfills which have been granted a permit or which are already in operation at the date of the transposition thereof, provided that the other conditions set out in Article 14 are met, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

It is clear from Article 8(a) and (b) of Directive 1999/31 that a landfill permit can be issued only if the landfill project is in line with the relevant waste management plan referred to in Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442. However, Article 14 of Directive 1999/31 makes ‘landfills which have been granted a permit, or which are already in operation at the time of [its] transposition …’, which must be effected by 16 July 2001 at the latest, subject to a transitional derogating system.

It follows from that transitional system that, in order to be able to continue to operate, those landfills must, within eight years after 16 July 2001, be brought into line with the new environmental requirements set out in Article 8 of Directive 1999/31, with the exception of those listed in Annex I, point 1, thereto. That exception concerns precisely the requirements as to the siting of the landfill.

Accordingly, Article 14 of Directive 1999/31 allows landfills which have been granted a permit, or which are already in operation at the time of transposition of that directive by the Member State to continue to operate and obtain new permits, even if they do not appear in the list of sites provided for in that waste management plan adopted pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 provided that the other conditions set out in Article 14 are met.

(see paras 32-35, 37, operative part)
Where a Member State family benefits agency has granted and paid as compensation dependent child allowances after deducting Swiss family allowances, the currency conversion of the Swiss family allowances due for the period between 1 June 2002 and 31 March 2012 to a cross-border worker, whose family members reside in a Member State other than the State of employment, for the purposes of the calculation of a differential supplement to those allowances under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71 must be carried out in accordance with Article 107(6) of that regulation, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1386/2001.

It is apparent from Article 1(1) of Annex II to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons, read in conjunction with Decision No 1/2012 of the EEA Joint Committee instituted by the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons of 31 March 2012 replacing Annex II to that Agreement on the coordination of social security systems, that, in the context of the coordination of the benefits covered by that agreement, Regulations No 1408/71 and No 574/72 apply during the period from 1 June 2002 to 31 March 2012. However, as from 1 April 2012, Regulations No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems apply.

Consequently, the family benefits paid by the Swiss State in relation to the period from October 2006 to November 2011 must be carried out under Article 107 of Regulation No 574/72 relating to the conversion of benefits covered by Regulations No 1408/71 and No 574/72, and not on the basis of Article 90 of Regulation No 987/2009 since, according to the wording of that provision, it applies only to the application of Regulations No 883/2004 and No 987/2009.

In addition, since Article 107(6) of Regulation No 574/72 must, according to its wording, apply in cases not covered by Article 107(1) of that regulation, it governs the currency conversion of the abovementioned benefits.

(see paras 31-33, 36, 40, operative part 1)
The obligation laid down in Article 45 of Directive 85/611 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), under which an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities which markets its units within the territory of a Member State other than that in which it is situated is required to make payments to unit-holders in the Member State of marketing, must be interpreted as not including the delivery to unit-holders of certificates providing evidence of title to units which are registered in their name in the register of unit-holders kept by the issuer.

The provisions of Directive 85/611 do not contain any provision as to the rules governing evidence of title, the holding or movement of units in a UCITS, or as to the proof of ownership of units for the purpose of enabling the holder to exercise the rights attached to them.

Consequently, that directive does not govern the fields referred to above; it merely lays down an obligation to make information available to unit-holders in that regard.

(see paras 41, 44, 47, operative part)
Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, where workers who are nationals of non-member countries are made available by an undertaking established in another Member State to a user undertaking established in the first Member State, which uses them to carry out work on behalf of another undertaking established in the same Member State, such making available is subject to the condition that those workers have been issued with work permits.

Although a Member State must be accorded both the power to check that an undertaking, established in another Member State and providing a user undertaking, established in the first Member State, with a service consisting in the making available of workers who are nationals of non-member countries, is not availing itself of the freedom to provide services for a purpose other than the provision of the service in question, and the possibility of taking the necessary control measures in that regard, the exercise of that power may not, however, allow that Member State to impose disproportionate requirements. A Member State retaining on a permanent basis a requirement for a work permit for nationals from non-members countries who are made available to an undertaking established in that Member State by an undertaking established in another Member State exceeds what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the legislation.

In that regard, an obligation imposed on a service-providing undertaking to provide the authorities of a host Member State with information showing that the situation of the workers concerned is lawful as regards matters such as residence, work permit and social coverage in the Member State in which that undertaking employs them would give those authorities, in a less restrictive but just as effective a manner as the requirement for a work permit, a guarantee that the situation of those workers is lawful and that they are carrying on their main activity in the Member State in which the service-providing undertaking is established.

Similarly, a measure which would be just as effective and less restrictive than the requirement for a work permit would be an obligation imposed on a service-providing undertaking to report beforehand to the authorities of the host Member State the presence of one or more posted workers, the anticipated duration of their presence and the provision or provisions of services justifying the posting. It would enable those authorities to monitor compliance with national social welfare legislation during the deployment, while at the same time taking account of the obligations by which the undertaking is already bound under the social welfare legislation applicable in the Member State of origin.

(see paras 55-57, 59, 60, operative part)
Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the terms and conditions laid down in a collective agreement, which, pursuant to the law of a Member State, despite the rescission of that agreement, continue to produce their effects as regards the employment relationship which was governed by them before the agreement was terminated, constitute ‘terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement’ so long as that employment relationship is not subject to a new collective agreement or a new individual agreement is not concluded with the employees concerned.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the price of haulage services for hire and reward may not be lower than minimum operating costs, which are fixed by a body composed mainly of representatives of the economic operators concerned.

Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, is infringed where a Member State requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 101 TFEU or reinforces their effects, or where it divests its own rules of the character of legislation by delegating to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere.

In those circumstances, first, the fixing of minimum operating costs by that body, which are made mandatory by national legislation, by preventing undertakings from setting tariffs lower than those costs, amounts to the horizontal fixing of mandatory minimum tariffs. Second, an agreement, decision or concerted practice extending over the whole of the territory of a Member State has, by its very nature, the effect of reinforcing the partitioning of markets on a national basis, thereby holding up the economic interpenetration which the TFEU is designed to bring about.

(see paras 28, 29, 43, 44, 58, operative part)
Under Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, no new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.

As regards an action brought by owners and shareholders in purse seiners flying the flag of France against Regulation No 530/2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45°W, and in the Mediterranean Sea, a judgment of the Court which declared that regulation to be invalid only to the extent that the purse seiners flying the flag of Spain were given an extra week of fishing, but maintained the validity of the date of the prohibition set for the remaining fishing vessels, does not constitute a new matter of law allowing a new plea in law to be raised in the proceedings. In fact, since the prohibition on fishing enacted for purse seiners flying the flag of Greece, France, Italy, Cyprus and Malta remained valid, that judgment has only confirmed a legal situation of which the applicants were aware when they brought their action.

(see paras 55, 58-60
Article 30 TFEU precludes a levy provided for under a national measure on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution which is applicable only to imports into a national region of surplus livestock manure and other fertilisers, which is levied on the importer whereas the tax on the surplus manure produced within the national territory is levied on the producer and is calculated differently from the tax on imports. In that regard, it is immaterial that the Member State from which the surplus manure is imported into the national region provides for a tax reduction in the case of export of that surplus to other Member States.

A charge imposed when goods cross a territorial boundary within a Member State constitutes a charge having effect equivalent to a customs duty. Moreover, customs duties and charges having equivalent effect thereto are prohibited regardless of the purpose for which they were introduced and the destination of the revenue from them.

(see paras 24, 35, 37, operative part)
A Member State which does not ensure the collection and treatment of urban waste waters of agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2000 and 15 000 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste water treatment.

Moreover, since Member States’ obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/271 relate specifically to agglomerations, as defined in Article 2 of that directive, and vary depending on their size, non-compliance with the requirements of the directive must be ascertained in relation to each agglomeration considered individually.

(see paras 38, 52, operative part)
Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with a view to ending age-based discrimination, takes into account periods of training and service prior to the age of 18 but which, at the same time, introduces — only for civil servants who suffered that discrimination — a three-year extension of the period required in order to progress from the first to the second incremental step in each job category and each salary group.

To the extent to which the three-year extension to the period required for advancement from the first to the second incremental step applies only to civil servants who completed periods of training and service before reaching the age of 18, such legislation involves a difference in treatment which is directly based on age within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78.

That difference in treatment cannot be justified only by the objectives of budgetary equilibrium or procedural economy. While budgetary considerations may underpin the chosen social policy of a Member State and influence the nature or extent of the measures that that Member State wishes to adopt, such considerations cannot in themselves constitute a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.

In contrast, respect for the acquired rights and the protection of the legitimate expectations of civil servants favoured by the previous system with regard to their remuneration constitute legitimate employment-policy and labour-market objectives which can justify, for a transitional period, the maintenance of earlier pay and, consequently, the maintenance of a system that discriminates on the basis of age. Such legislation makes it possible to attain those objectives in so far as civil servants favoured by the previous system will not be subject to the retroactive extension of the period for advancement.

However, those objectives cannot justify a measure that maintains definitively, if only for certain persons, the age-based difference in treatment which the reform of a discriminatory system, of which such a measure forms part, is designed to eliminate. Such a measure, even if it is capable of ensuring the protection of acquired rights and legitimate expectations with regard to civil servants favoured by the previous system, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing a non-discriminatory system for civil servants who were disadvantaged by that previous system.

(see paras 35, 41-45, operative part 1)
2.

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Reimbursement of charges levied in breach of rules of EU law — Limitation period — Reduction with retroactive effect and without notice or transitional arrangements of the time‑limit applicable to one of the legal remedies available to tax payers — Incompatibility with the principles of effectiveness and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 4(3) TEU) (see paras 33-40, 45, operative part)
1.

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies of goods designed for fire protection, set out in Annex No 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 concerning tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III to that directive;
The practice of permitting, in order to establish a safe and efficient transport system, Black Cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up and set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, does not appear, though it is for the referring court to determine, to be such as to involve a commitment of State resources or to confer on Black Cabs a selective economic advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

For the purposes of determining the existence of State aid, it is necessary to establish a sufficiently direct link between, on the one hand, the advantage given to the beneficiary and, on the other, a reduction of the State budget or a sufficiently concrete economic risk of burdens on that budget.

The reason why Black Cabs can use those bus lanes without being subject to fines is not that the public authorities have made a decision not to collect fines which are payable, but that taxis are permitted to use those bus lanes. Accordingly, the fact that Black Cabs are not obliged to pay fines because of their use of bus lanes does not involve additional burdens on the public authorities which might entail a commitment of State resources.

Further, where the State, in order to pursue the realisation of an objective laid down by that State’s legislation, grants a right of privileged access to public infrastructure which is not operated commercially by the public authorities to users of that infrastructure, the State does not necessarily confer an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

The competent national public authorities have a degree of discretion both as regards whether it is necessary, in order to achieve the regulatory objective pursued, to forgo possible revenue and also as regards how the appropriate criteria for the granting of the right, which must be determined in advance in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner, are to be identified.

Article 107(1) TFEU requires an assessment of whether, under a particular legal regime, a national measure is such as to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.

In that regard, the identification of the respective situations of Black Cabs and minicabs and the assessment of whether those situations may be comparable is an issue which falls within the jurisdiction of the referring court, which alone has available to it all the relevant matters of fact and law.

(see paras 34, 40, 41, 48, 49, 55, 57, 63, operative part 1)
Where there is a lack of precision, in a request for a preliminary ruling, as to the provisions of EU law of which an interpretation is requested, the Court must extract from all the factors provided by the referring court, and in particular from the statement of grounds contained in the order for reference, the provisions of EU law requiring an interpretation, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute.

Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the mandatory preliminary application of a national administrative procedure, in the event that the revenue authorities suspect the existence of an abusive practice, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and that they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the EU legal order. Such is the case for a preliminary procedure that, on the one hand, is favourable to the person suspected of having committed an abuse of rights, inasmuch as it seeks to guarantee the observance of certain fundamental rights, in particular the right to be heard, and which, on the other hand, is not contrary to the objective of the prevention of tax evasion, avoidance and abuse, recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice.

(see paras 26, 29, 32, 34, operative part)