ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

2 State aid - General aid scheme approved by the Commission - Individual aid purporting to be covered by the approval - Scrutiny by the Commission - Assessment primarily in the light of the approval decision and only secondarily in the light of Article 92 of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Arts 92 and 93)

3 State aid - Prohibition - Derogations - Aid capable of being regarded as compatible with the common market - Discretion of the Commission - Reference to the Community context

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(3))

4 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Not admissible - Rejection - Legal characterization of the facts - Admissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

Summary

5 Although the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Community authority which adopted the contested measure so as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court to exercise its power of review, it is not required to go into every relevant point of fact and law. The question whether a statement of reasons for a decision satisfies those requirements must be assessed with reference not only to its wording but also to its context and the whole body of legal rules governing the matter in question.

6 When the Commission has before it a specific grant of an aid alleged to be made in pursuance of a previously authorized scheme, it cannot at the outset examine it directly in relation to the Treaty. Prior to the initiation of any procedure, it must first examine whether the aid is covered by the general scheme and satisfies the conditions laid down in the decision approving it. If it did not do so, the Commission could, whenever it examined an individual aid, go back on its decision approving the aid scheme which already involved an examination in the light of Article 92 of the Treaty. This would jeopardize the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty from the point of view of both the Member States and traders since individual aid in strict conformity with the decision approving the aid scheme could at any time be called in question by the Commission.

7 As regards the rules on State aid, the discretion conferred on the Commission must be exercised in a Community context, just as the compatibility with the Treaty of the aid in question must be determined in the context of the Community.

8 Although an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of facts, nevertheless, where the Court of First Instance has not only assessed the facts but has also categorized them, the Court of Justice may examine the merits of a plea put forward in that regard.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Basis of assessment - Reduced in the case of total or partial non-payment - Member States permitted to derogate therefrom - Extent to which so permitted - Refund of the tax excluded in case of non-payment where consideration paid in kind - Not permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11C(1), second subpara.)

Summary

The derogation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 11C(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 does not authorize a Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of VAT in the case of total or partial non-payment of the consideration to refuse that refund where the unpaid consideration is in kind, when it permits a refund where the consideration is expressed in money.

On the one hand, since such provisions alter the taxable amount in a manner which goes beyond what is strictly necessary in order to avoid the risk of tax evasion, they cannot be justified by the aim of preventing such a risk. On the other hand, those provisions lead to discrimination against transactions in which consideration is paid in kind as compared with those in which the consideration is expressed in money, by discouraging traders from entering into barter contracts, when the two situations, which are economically and commercially speaking identical, are treated in the same way by the Sixth Directive.
In the context of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in the Member State as it stood at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive - Scope - Unlawful operation of games of chance - Included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 2)

2 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive - Exemption for games of chance - Power of the Member States to lay down the conditions and limitations of the exemption - Limits - Exemption from tax solely for lawful games of chance - Not permissible

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

Summary

3 While imports or supplies of products which, because of their special characteristics, may not be marketed or incorporated into economic channels, such as narcotic drugs or counterfeit currency, are wholly alien to the provisions of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and do not give rise to any value added tax debt, by contrast, outside those cases where all competition between a lawful economic sector and an unlawful sector is ruled out, the principle of fiscal neutrality precludes a generalised distinction from being drawn in the levying of value added tax between unlawful and lawful transactions.

Those considerations relating to the import or supply of goods apply equally to the supply of services such as the organisation of games of chance. Those games, and roulette in particular, are lawfully played in a number of Member States. Since unlawful transactions in the operation of a game of chance are in competition with lawful activities, the principle of fiscal neutrality precludes their being treated differently as regards value added tax. The unlawful operation of a game of chance, in the event roulette, therefore falls within the scope of the Sixth Directive.

4 Article 13(B)(f) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not impose value added tax on the unlawful operation of a game of chance when the corresponding activity carried on by a licensed public casino is exempted.

The exemptions provided for by Article 13(B) of the directive are to be applied in accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax. That requirement also applies when the Member States exercise their power under Article 13(B)(f) to lay down the conditions and limitations of the exemption. The principle of fiscal neutrality precludes a generalised distinction from being drawn in the levying of value added tax between unlawful and lawful transactions. It follows that Member States cannot reserve the exemption solely to lawful games of chance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Decision addressed to a Member State granting financial assistance under the ERDF for the building of power stations - Persons not individually concerned - Associations representing those persons - Inadmissibility - Rights under Directive 85/337 - No effect - Protection by national courts

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., and 177; Council Directive 85/337)

Summary

Persons other than the addressees may claim that a decision is of individual concern to them only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them, or by reason of factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person addressed.

As regards more particularly a decision addressed to a Member State concerning the grant, under the European Regional Development Fund, of financial assistance for the building of two power stations, natural persons whose specific situation was not taken into consideration in the adoption of the decision, which concerns them in a general and abstract fashion and, in fact, like any other person in the same situation, are not individually concerned by the decision. The same applies to associations representing those persons which claim to have locus standi on the basis that their members are individually concerned by the decision.

In that connection environmental rights arising under Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment cannot be invoked, since it is the decision to build the power stations which is liable to affect those environmental rights and not the decision concerning the Community financing, which can only have an indirect effect.

Inasmuch as proceedings may be brought before the national courts challenging the administrative authorisations concerning the construction of the power stations and the declarations of environmental impact relating to the construction products, the rights afforded to individuals by Directive 85/337 are fully protected by the national courts which may, if need be, refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty. Locus standi must accordingly be assessed in the light of the criteria set out in the first paragraph above.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

14 March 1996

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Transposition of Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices))

In Case C-239/95,

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 February 1996,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Member States - Obligations - Failure to fulfil obligations - Retention of a national provision incompatible with Community law - Justification on the basis of administrative practices ensuring that the Treaty is applied - Not permissible

2 Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Directive intended to confer rights on individuals - Transposition without legislative action - Not permissible

Summary

3 The incompatibility of national legislation with Community provisions, even provisions which are directly applicable, can be finally remedied only by means of national provisions of a binding nature which have the same legal force as those which must be amended. Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty.

4 The provisions of a directive must be implemented with unquestionable binding force and with the specificity, precision and clarity required in order to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, under which, in the case of a directive intended to confer rights on individuals, persons concerned must be enabled to ascertain the full extent of their rights.

That is not the case where, because a legislative provision incompatible with a provision in a directive has been retained, individuals are in a position of uncertainty as to their legal situation and exposed to unwarranted criminal proceedings. Neither the obligation for national courts to secure the full effect of Article 5 of the directive by not applying any contrary national provision, nor a ministerial answer to a parliamentary question can have the effect of amending a statutory provision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987 - Responsible guarantee institution - Employee residing and having been employed in a Member State other than that in which the employer is established - Responsibility of the institution of the Member State in which either it is decided to open the proceedings for the collective satisfaction of creditors' claims or it has been established that the employer's undertaking or business has been closed down

(Council Directive 80/987, Arts 2(1) and 3)

Summary

Where the employer is established in a Member State other than that in which the employee resides and was employed, the guarantee institution responsible, under Article 3 of Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, for the payment of that employee's claims in the event of the employer's insolvency is the institution of the State in which, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the directive, either it is decided to open the proceedings for the collective satisfaction of creditors' claims or it has been established that the employer's undertaking or business has been closed down.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Registration of a vessel other than a fishing vessel in a Member State - Condition relating to the nationality of the owners - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 6, 48, 52 and 58; Commission Regulation No 1251/70, Art. 7; Council Directive 75/34, Art. 7)

Summary

A Member State which maintains in force laws, regulations or administrative provisions limiting the right to register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the national register to vessels which are owned in whole or in part by the Government, a Minister, a citizen of that Member State or a body corporate established under national law fails to fulfil its obligations under Community law.

Specifically, with regard to vessels used for the pursuit of an economic activity, such legislation is contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty in so far as it makes registration subject to a condition that where a vessel is owned or chartered by natural persons they must be of a particular nationality and, in the case of a company, the shareholders and directors must be of that nationality. Furthermore, such legislation is contrary to Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty in so far as it requires legal persons owning vessels to be established under and subject to national law and to have their principal place of business in that Member State, thus precluding registration or management of a vessel in the case of a secondary establishment such as an agency, branch or subsidiary.

With regard to vessels not used for the pursuit of an economic activity, registration in the host Member State by a national of another Member State falls within the scope of the Community provisions relating to freedom of movement for persons and such legislation, in so far as it allows only nationals to register pleasure craft which they own, is contrary to Articles 6, 48 and 52 of the Treaty, Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/70 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State and Article 7 of Directive 75/34 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed capacity.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Insurance in respect of old age and death - Benefits - Adjustment - Recalculation of the share of an old-age pension paid, pursuant to national legislation, to a separated spouse in the event of the invalidity benefit drawn by the person concerned being altered under the legislation of another Member State - Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 3(1), 46 and 51(1))

Summary

Articles 46 and 51(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, must be interpreted as precluding the share of an employed person's old-age pension granted to that person's separated spouse under the legislation of a Member State from being recalculated downwards by reference to alterations arising from general economic and social developments in an invalidity benefit received by that separated spouse under the legislation of another Member State.

Article 51(1) applies not only where the benefit to be reduced due to index-linked increases in another benefit has been calculated according to Article 46, but also where it has been calculated in accordance with national provisions.

Moreover, since the benefit granted to a separated spouse does not form part of a scheme designed to offset the inadequacy of the recipient's resources so as to allow that person a guaranteed statutory minimum, the application of Article 51(1) does not cause any disruption in the functioning of such a scheme.

Finally, the application of Article 51(1) is not precluded by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the ground that it might confer an advantage on a recipient whose benefit cannot be recalculated, since the latter provision is not intended to establish equality of treatment between spouses, nor does it preclude the application of national legislation treating non-migrant workers less favourably than migrant workers.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Insurance in respect of old age and death - Insurance against invalidity - Calculation of benefits - National legislation determining benefit by reference to an average contribution basis over a reference period - Detailed rules for application to a worker ceasing his activity in a Member State applying different legislation and who has not contributed under the applicable legislation during the reference period - Calculation of the average contribution basis by reference to contributions actually paid under the legislation applicable, with the theoretical amount of the corresponding benefit being revalorized and increased as if the persons concerned had continued to work under the scheme of the legislation applicable - Derogation - Bilateral social security convention prior to the regulation's entry into force in the Member State in question and more advantageous for the workers concerned

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 47(1)(e))

Summary

Article 47(1)(e) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83 and as adapted by Annex I, Part VIII, of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties, and which has become Article 47(1)(g) following the entry into force of Regulation No 1248/92, implies that, where retirement and invalidity pensions are calculated under the legislation of a Member State whereby the amount of those pensions is calculated from an average contribution basis corresponding to the salary received over a certain number of years preceding retirement or the onset of invalidity, calculation of the average basis for contributions rests, in the case of workers who, after having been subject to the legislation of that Member State, resumed employment in another Member State and carried it on until the end of their working lives, solely on the amount of contributions actually paid under the legislation concerned, and further implies that the theoretical amount of the benefit thus obtained is to be duly revalorized and increased as if the persons concerned had continued to work under the same conditions in the Member State in question.

However, where application of that provision so interpreted proves less advantageous, for workers who were already employed in another Member State before the regulation entered into force in the first Member State, than the application of a previous convention between those two States, the competent court should, by way of exception, apply the rules laid down by that convention.
A public placement office may be classed as an undertaking for the purposes of the Community competition rules since, in the context of competition law, the concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its status and the way in which it is financed.

As undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, under Article 90(2) of the Treaty public placement offices are subject to the rules on competition and, in particular, the prohibition contained in Article 86 of the Treaty, so long as application of that provision does not obstruct the performance of the particular task assigned to them. A Member State which prohibits any activity as an intermediary between supply and demand on the employment market, whether as an employment agency or as an employment business, unless carried on by those offices, is in breach of Article 90(1) of the Treaty where it creates a situation in which those offices cannot avoid infringing Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case, in particular, in the following circumstances:

— the public placement offices are manifestly unable to satisfy demand on the market for all types of activity; and

— the actual placement of employees by private companies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in force of statutory provisions under which such activities are prohibited and nonobservance of that prohibition gives rise to penal and administrative sanctions; and
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Quality required of shellfish waters - Directive 79/923 - Designation of waters considered in need of protection or improvement - Obligation of Member States - Scope

(Council Directive 79/923, Art. 4)

Summary

A Member State which fails to designate all the coastal and brackish waters it considers to need protection or improvement in order to support shellfish life and growth and thus to contribute to the high quality of shellfish products directly edible by man fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive 79/923 on the quality required of shellfish waters.

Although Member States have a certain discretion, in that connection, in ascertaining that the conditions giving rise to the need for protection or improvement obtain, waters must be designated if those conditions do obtain.