ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Exclusions from the right of deduction – Option for Member States to retain exclusions existing on entry into force of the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(6))

Summary

Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, the provisions of which have, substantially, been reproduced in Article 176 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, must be construed as not authorising the retention of national legislation, applicable when Sixth Directive 77/388 entered into force in the Member State concerned, which excludes in general the right to deduct input value added tax paid at the time of the purchase of imported services, the price of which is directly or indirectly paid to a person established in a State or territory classified as a ‘tax haven’ by that national legislation.

Member States are not empowered to maintain exclusions from that right which apply in a general manner to any expenditure related to the acquisition of goods or services.

(see paras 30, 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – University lecturers

(Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 6(1))

Summary

Council Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Article 6(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked to, in particular, employment and labour market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

This being a dispute between a public institution and an individual, if national legislation does not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, the national court must decline to apply that legislation.

(see paras 68, 73, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 CE) (see paras 17-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by continuing to apply Ministerial Decree No A1/44351/3608 of 12 October 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002, and in particular Article 9(1) and (2) thereof;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Production of evidence showing failure – Incumbent on Member State concerned to refute evidence (Art. 258 TFEU; Council Directive 91/271, Art. 11(1) and (2)) (see paras 21-22, 32)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU; Council Directive 91/271, Art. 11(1) and (2)) (see paras 24-25)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) – Licence to discharge waste water – ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial site of Estação de Serviço Sobritos L da , situated in the Matosinhos urban area, without adequate authorisation to that effect, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36) (see paras 76-78)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see paras 88-91)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Union law (see para 105)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Plea in law to the effect that there is no mechanism for the joinder of a third party (see paras 121-125)

5. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility (see paras 130-134)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2009 in Joined Cases T‑396/05 and T‑397/05 ArchiMEDES v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the applicant at first instance seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decisions to recover certain sums paid under a contract with the applicant and to set off their reciprocal claims and, second, an order for the Commission to pay the remainder of the balance due under that contract – Non-applicability of the principle of litis denuntiatio – Rejection of the claim for the co-contractors to be held jointly and severally liable – Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces – Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Directive 2004/18 – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18)

Summary

Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, when a contracting authority concludes with a private company independent of it a contract establishing a joint venture in the form of a share company, the purpose of which is to provide occupational health care and welfare services, the award by the contracting authority of the contract relating to the services for its own staff, the value of which exceeds the threshold laid down by that directive, and which is severable from the contract establishing that company, must be made in accordance with the provisions of that directive applicable to the services in Annex II B thereof.

Although the creation, by a contracting authority and a private economic operator, of a joint enterprise is not covered as such by Directive 2004/18, a capital operation cannot, in reality, conceal the award to a private partner of contracts which might be considered to be public contracts or concessions. Furthermore, the fact that a private entity and a contracting entity cooperate within a mixed capital entity cannot justify failure to observe the provision or public procurement when awarding such a contract to that private entity or that mixed capital entity. Thus, where the need to conclude such a mixed contract with a single partner is not objectively demonstrated and the component of the mixed contract consisting in the undertaking by the contracting authority to purchase health care services for its staff from the joint venture is severable from that contract, the relevant provisions of Directive 2004/18 are applicable to the award of that aspect.

(see paras 33-34, 45-47, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States – Exemption of supplies of goods dispatched or transported within the Community

(first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of Council Directive 77/388)

Summary

When goods are the subject of two successive supplies between different taxable persons acting as such, but of a single intra-Community transport, the determination of the transaction to which that transport should be ascribed, namely, the first or second supply – given that that transaction therefore falls within the concept of an intra-Community supply for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 96/95, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) and (b), the first subparagraph of Article 28a(1)(a), and Article 28b(A)(1) of that directive – must be conducted in the light of an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the case in order to establish which of those two supplies fulfils all the conditions relating to an intra-Community supply.

In that connection, when the first person acquiring the goods, having obtained the right to dispose of the goods as owner in the Member State of the first supply, expresses his intention to transport those goods to another Member State and presents his value added tax identification number attributed by that other State, the intra-Community transport should be ascribed to the first supply, on condition that the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the second person acquiring the goods in the Member State of destination of the intra‑Community transport. It is for the national court to establish whether that condition has been fulfilled.

(see paras 44-45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – Court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU – Concept

(Art. 267 TFEU)

Summary

In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU, which is a question governed by Union law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes , whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent.

As regards, more specifically, the independence of the body making a reference, there are two aspects to that concept. The first aspect, which is external, entails the body’s being protected against external intervention or pressure liable to jeopardise the independent judgment of its members as regards proceedings before them. The second aspect, which is internal, is linked to impartiality and seeks to ensure equal terms for the parties to the proceedings and their respective interests in relation to the subject-matter of those proceedings.

The criterion of independence is not satisfied by the Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (the licensing and control authority of the broadcasting authority), which is responsible for ensuring compliance by the media broadcasters in question with the broadcasting rules and for punishing any infringements and the Collège does not, therefore, constitute a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU. The reason for this is that neither the structural organisation of the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (broadcasting authority) and the bodies of which it is made up, nor the tasks assigned to them, support a finding that that authority acts as an impartial third party between the alleged offender, on the one hand, and the administrative authority responsible for monitoring the audiovisual sector, on the other. In particular, the Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel, through the Bureau du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (bureau of the broadcasting authority), which is a decision-making body, is linked, in terms of functions, with the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel as a whole and also with the investigatory office, upon whose proposals it decides. Consequently, when it adopts a decision, the Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel is not distinct from the administrative monitoring body, which can act as a party to proceedings relating to broadcasting matters. That finding is corroborated by the fact that the bureau represents the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel before the courts and with respect to third parties.

(see paras 36, 39-42, 44-46)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive – Transactions involving instruments referred to in Article 13B(d)(5)

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(5))

Summary

Article 13B(d)(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT laid down therein covers services supplied by a credit institution, for consideration, in the form of an underwriting guarantee to a company wishing to issue shares, when under that guarantee the credit institution undertakes to acquire any shares not subscribed within the period for share subscription.

(see para. 38, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the pre-litigation procedure – Alteration of claims after the reasoned opinion, on account of an amendment to the national legislation – Whether permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paragraphs 19-20)

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of the killing or capturing of protected species – Conditions – No reference in the national legislation to lack of any other satisfactory solution – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 5(a) and 9) (see paragraphs 29-30)

3. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of the killing or capturing of protected species – Conditions – Competent authority’s decision containing precise, sufficient details referring to the reasons for, and to the conditions and requirements of, the directive –Regional legislation not satisfying the conditions set forth in the directive – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 5(a) and 9(1) and (2)) (see paragraphs 36-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) – Derogations – Region of Sardinia.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, the region of Sardinia having adopted, and applying, legislation relating to the authorisation of derogations from the rules for the protection of wild birds that does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment – Pecuniary penalties – Purpose – Choice of appropriate penalty

(Art. 228(2) EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment – Pecuniary penalties – Imposition of a lump sum payment

(Art. 228(2) EC)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Period for implementation – Reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations

(Art. 228 EC)

Summary

1. According to the procedure referred to in Article 228(2) EC, it is for the Court, in each case, in the light of the circumstances of the case before it and the degree of persuasion and deterrence which appears to it to be required, to determine the financial penalties appropriate for making sure that the judgment which previously established the breach is complied with as swiftly as possible and for preventing similar infringements of European Union law from recurring. While the imposition of a penalty payment seems particularly suitable for the purpose of inducing a Member State to put an end as soon as possible to a breach of obligations which, failing such a measure, would be liable to persist, the imposition of a lump sum is prompted, essentially, by the assessment of the consequences for public and private interests of the failure of the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations, in particular when the breach has persisted for a long period after the judgment initially establishing it was delivered.

(see paras 28-29)

2. In connection with the procedure referred to in Article 228(2) EC, whether a lump sum payment should be imposed must, in each individual case, depend on all the relevant factors pertaining to both the particular nature of the infringement established and the individual conduct of the Member State involved in the procedure initiated pursuant to Article 228 EC. In any event, if the Court decides to impose a lump sum payment, it must, in exercising its discretion, do so in a manner that is, first, appropriate to the circumstances and, secondly, proportionate both to the breach that has been established and to the ability to pay of the Member State concerned. Consequently, for the purpose of ruling on a request to impose a lump sum payment, the Court must take account of all the circumstances of the infringement and, in particular, of the conduct of the Member State concerned and the duration and seriousness of the infringement.

(see paras 30-32)

3. Although Article 228 EC does not specify the period within which a judgment must be complied with, the action required to give effect to a judgment must be set in motion immediately and be completed as soon as possible.

(see para. 34)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Novel foods and novel food ingredients – Placing on the market – Regulation No 258/97 – Commission decision refusing authorisation to place a food or a food ingredient on the market of the European Union – Not binding on persons other than the addressees of the decision – Marketing in the territory of a Member State of a product with characteristics similar to those of the product for which authorisation to place on the market was refused – Duties incumbent on the competent authorities of that Member State

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 258/97, Art. 1(2) and (7)

Summary

A Commission decision taken on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients and refusing authorisation to place on the market of the European Union a food or food ingredient is not binding on any persons other than the person or persons whom that decision specifies as its addressees. By contrast, the competent authorities of a Member State must establish whether a product marketed in the territory of that Member State, the characteristics of which appear to match those of the product which was the subject-matter of that Commission decision, is a novel food or novel food ingredient within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation and, where necessary, they must require the person concerned to comply with the provisions of that regulation.

(see para. 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Power of the Member States to organise their social security systems – Limits – Compliance with European Union law – Rules of the Treaty on freedom of movement for workers – Effect on benefits granted under the legislation of a single Member State

(Arts 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1408/71)

2. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Person in receipt of a pension in his Member State of origin and another in another Member State – Return to the Member State of origin on retirement

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 15 and 27)

Summary

1. The aim of Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU would not be achieved if, as a consequence of the exercise of their right to freedom of movement, migrant workers were to lose the social security advantages guaranteed them by the legislation of one Member State, especially where those advantages represent the counterpart of contributions which they have paid. The European Union legislation on the coordination of national social security legislations, taking account in particular of its underlying objectives, cannot, except in the case of an express exception in conformity with those objectives, be applied in such a way as to deprive a migrant worker or those claiming under him of benefits granted solely by virtue of the legislation of a single Member State. Those articles, and Regulation No 1408/71 adopted to implement them, are intended in particular to prevent a worker who, by exercising his right of freedom of movement, has been employed in more than one Member State from being treated, without objective justification, less favourably than one who has completed his entire career in only one Member State.

(see paras 74-76)

2. Articles 15 and 27 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1386/2001, must be interpreted as not precluding a person who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

(see para. 88, operative part)