ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6

The Code of Taxation Procedure and Proceedings (Código de Procedimento e de Processo Tributário, ‘the CPPT’) was adopted by Decree Law No 433/99 of 26 October 1999, and entered into force on 1 January 2000. Article 63 of the CPPT, entitled ‘Application of anti-abuse rules’ was worded, in the version applicable to the factual circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, as follows: ‘1. The payment of taxes on the basis of any anti-abuse provision laid down in the codes and other tax laws shall be subject to the initiation of a special procedure relating thereto. 2. For the purposes of this Code, anti-abuse provisions shall be deemed to be any legal rules rendering ineffective with regard to the tax authorities legal transactions or acts concluded or carried out in manifest abuse of legal procedures and giving rise to the avoidance or reduction of taxes that would otherwise be payable. 3. The procedure referred to in the previous paragraph may be initiated within a period of three years following the carrying out of the act or the conclusion of the legal transaction that is the subject-matter of the application of anti-abuse provisions. 4. The application of the anti-abuse provisions shall be subject to the taxpayer’s being granted a hearing, in accordance with the law. 5. The right to a hearing shall be exercised within a period of 30 days of the corresponding notification to the taxpayer by registered post. 6. Within the period referred to in the previous paragraph, the taxpayer may submit any evidence he considers relevant. 7. The application of the anti-abuse provisions shall be preceded, once the requirements of the previous paragraphs have been satisfied, by the authorisation of the head of the department or the official to whom he has delegated the relevant power. 8. The anti-abuse provisions shall not be applicable to cases in which the taxpayer has applied to the tax authorities for binding information concerning the facts on which that application is based and the tax authorities have not replied within a period of six months. 9. Save as otherwise provided by law, the grounds of the decision referred to in Paragraph 7 shall contain: (a) a description of the legal transaction concluded or legal act carried out and of its true economic nature; (b) evidence that the sole or decisive aim of the conclusion of the transaction or the carrying out of the act was to evade tax payable on transactions or acts of that economic nature; (c) a description of transactions or acts of the same economic nature as those actually concluded or carried out and of the tax rules applicable to them. 10. An independent administrative appeal may be brought against the authorisation referred to in Paragraph 7 of this article.’
18

Mr Lafonta lodged an appeal in cassation against that judgment. As grounds for that appeal, Mr Lafonta submits that information is precise for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 621-1 of the General Regulation of the AMF, to which Article 223-2 of that regulation refers, only ‘if it indicates a set of circumstances which exists or may reasonably be expected to come into existence or an event which has occurred or may reasonably be expected to do so and if it enables a conclusion to be drawn from it as to the possible effect of that set of circumstances or event on the price of financial instruments or related financial instruments’. It follows, according to Mr Lafonta, that information is precise, for the purposes of that provision, only if it allows the person in possession of that information to anticipate how the price of the security concerned will change when that information is made public. He argues that only information that enables the person in possession of it to predict whether the price of the security concerned is going to increase or decrease allows that person to know whether he should buy or sell and, accordingly, grants him an advantage as compared with all the other actors on the market, who are unaware of that information. Mr Lafonta adds that, in the circumstances, it was impossible to predict whether the disclosure of the information concerning Wendel’s acquisition of a shareholding in Saint-Gobain would result in an increase or a decrease in Wendel’s share price.
It is for the referring court, in order to make a tariff classification of the pumpkin seeds at issue in the main proceedings, to ascertain whether those seeds are normally used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats, but are not covered by headings 1201 to 1206 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007. If that is the case, those seeds must be classified under heading 1207 of the Combined Nomenclature because they are oilseeds, whether or not they are actually used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats or for sowing or human consumption. If that is not the case, those seeds will come under heading 1209 of the Combined Nomenclature if they could still be germinated when they were imported, whether or not they are actually used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats or for sowing or human consumption, or under heading 1212 of the Combined Nomenclature if they could not still be germinated.
13

Article 5 of the Wi provides: ‘1. Notwithstanding Article 3, the following persons shall not be required to fulfil the civic integration obligation: a. persons under the age of 16 or aged 65 and over; b. persons who resided in the Netherlands for at least eight years during the school-age period; c. persons who have acquired a diploma, certificate or other document laid down by or in accordance with a general administrative order; d. persons who are under an obligation to study or to obtain a qualification; e. persons who, after the obligation to study or to obtain a qualification, are following an educational course the completion of which will result in the award of a diploma, certificate or other document pursuant to subparagraph c; f. persons who have demonstrated that they have adequate oral and written skills in the Netherlands language and obvious knowledge of Netherlands society. 2. The following persons are also not required to fulfil the civic integration obligation: ... c. foreign nationals who, under the legislation of a Member State of the European Union or another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, have fulfilled a civic integration obligation in order to be granted long-term resident status within the meaning of Directive 2003/109; ... 3. Persons required to fulfil the civic integration obligation who have acquired a diploma, certificate or other document laid down by or in accordance with a general administrative order, showing that they have already acquired some of the knowledge and skills referred to in Article 7, are exempt from the obligation to acquire that part of the knowledge or skills and to pass the relevant part of the civic integration examination. 4. By or in accordance with a general administrative order, rules may be laid down in respect of: a. further total or partial exemption from the civic integration obligation; b. the residence referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph b, and c. the application of paragraph 1, subparagraph f. 5. The Minister can lay down policy rules regarding the application of paragraph 2, subparagraph d.’
5

Article 8 of Directive 2004/48, which is entitled ‘Right of information’, states: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that, in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right and in response to a justified and proportionate request of the claimant, the competent judicial authorities may order that information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right be provided by the infringer and/or any other person who: (a) was found in possession of the infringing goods on a commercial scale; (b) was found to be using the infringing services on a commercial scale; (c) was found to be providing on a commercial scale services used in infringing activities; or (d) was indicated by a person referred to in point (a), (b) or (c) as being involved in the production, manufacture or distribution of the goods or the provision of the services. 2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall, as appropriate, comprise: (a) the names and addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers; (b) information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the goods or services in question. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply without prejudice to other statutory provisions which: (a) grant the right holder rights to receive fuller information; (b) govern the use in civil or criminal proceedings of the information communicated pursuant to this Article; (c) govern responsibility for misuse of the right of information; or (d) afford an opportunity for refusing to provide information which would force the person referred to in paragraph 1 to admit to his/her own participation or that of his/her close relatives in an infringement of an intellectual property right; or (e) govern the protection of confidentiality of information sources or the processing of personal data.’
4

Annex X to the Act of Accession 2003 is entitled ‘List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Hungary’. Chapter 1 of that annex, entitled ‘Freedom of movement for persons’, provides, in paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 13, as follows: ‘1. [Articles 45 TFEU and 56, first paragraph TFEU] shall fully apply only in relation to the freedom of movement of workers and the freedom to provide services involving temporary movement of workers as defined in Article 1 of [Directive 96/71] between Hungary on the one hand and Belgium, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom on the other hand, subject to the transitional provisions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 14. 2. By way of derogation from Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 [of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475)] and until the end of the two-year period following the date of accession, the present Member States will apply national measures, or those resulting from bilateral agreements, regulating access to their labour markets by Hungarian nationals. The present Member States may continue to apply such measures until the end of the five year period following the date of accession. … 5. A Member State maintaining national measures or measures resulting from bilateral agreements at the end of the five year period indicated in paragraph 2 may, in case of serious disturbances of its labour market or threat thereof and after notifying the Commission, continue to apply these measures until the end of the seven year period following the date of accession. In the absence of such notification, Articles 1 to 6 of [Regulation No 1612/68] shall apply. … 13. In order to address serious disturbances or the threat thereof in specific sensitive service sectors on their labour markets, which could arise in certain regions from the transnational provision of services, as defined in Article 1 of Directive [96/71], and as long as they apply, by virtue of the transitional provisions laid down above, national measures or those resulting from bilateral agreements to the free movement of Hungarian workers, Germany and Austria may, after notifying the Commission, derogate from [the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU] with a view to limit[ing] in the context of the provision of services by companies established in Hungary, the temporary movement of workers whose right to take up work in Germany and Austria is subject to national measures. The list of service sectors which may be covered by this derogation is as follows: … — Austria: [Horticultural service activities, cutting, shaping and finishing stone, manufacture of metal structures and parts of structures, construction, including related branches, security activities, industrial cleaning, home nursing, social work activities without accommodation] …’
46

The refusal to grant the personal deduction at issue in the main proceedings must, as the Skatteverket points out in its observations, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, rather be accepted as an element inherent to that regime, since it seeks both to simplify the task of the administration and ease the burden on the non-resident taxpayer. Thus, when a non-resident taxpayer opts for that regime, the Skatteverket no longer has to collect the tax from that taxpayer, so that it is not necessary for it to have a precise overview of the personal or family circumstances of that person. At the same time, that taxpayer is no longer required to cooperate, in that he is not required to submit a tax return in Swedish for the income which he obtains in Sweden and, in consequence, is not required to make himself familiar with the tax system of a Member State other than his Member State of residence.
By requiring candidates for posts in the local services established in the certain linguistic regions, whose diplomas or certificates do not show that they were educated in the language concerned, to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge by means of a certificate issued only by one official body of the Member State concerned following an examination conducted by that body in that Member State, the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation No 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union.

Such a requirement appears, in view of the freedom of movement for workers, disproportionate to the aim of assessing the linguistic knowledge of those candidates. That requirement precludes any consideration of the level of knowledge which a holder of a diploma obtained in another Member State can be assumed to possess on the evidence of that diploma, having regard to the nature and duration of the studies which it attests. Moreover, that national legislation effectively forces interested persons residing in other Member States, for the most part nationals of those Member States, to travel to the Member State concerned for the sole purpose of having their knowledge tested in an examination which is mandatory for the issuance of the certificate required for their application. The additional expenses which that requirement entails are liable to make it more difficult to gain access to the posts in question.

(see paras 28, 29, 31, 35, operative part 1)
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 –

OHIM v Kessel medintim

(Case C‑31/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark Premeno — Opposition from the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Pramino — Limitation of the goods designated in the Community trade mark application — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 43(1)’

Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of the trade mark application — Application to restrict the list of goods or services — Requirement of clarity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(2)) (see paras 36, 37)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs;

3. Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 102, 07.04.2014

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 –

OHIM v Kessel medintim

(Case C‑31/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark Premeno — Opposition from the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Pramino — Limitation of the goods designated in the Community trade mark application — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 43(1)’

Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of the trade mark application — Application to restrict the list of goods or services — Requirement of clarity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(2)) (see paras 36, 37)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs;

3. Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 102, 07.04.2014
1.

Declares that, by having failed to designate as vulnerable zones the zones characterised by the presence of bodies of surface water or groundwater which are affected by concentrations of nitrates above 50 milligrammes per litre and/or by the phenomenon of eutrophification, and by not having established the action programmes related to those zones within one year after that designation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(4) and 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;
Directive 2008/115 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular, Articles 6(1) and Article 8(1), read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides, in the event of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of that Member State, depending on the circumstances, for either a fine or removal, since the two measures are mutually exclusive.

In that regard, the objective of Directive 2008/115, as is apparent from recitals 2 and 4 in the preamble thereto, is the establishment of an effective removal and repatriation policy. Article 1 of that directive sets out the common standards and procedures to be applied by each Member State for returning illegally staying third-country nationals.

Moreover, Article 6(1) of the directive provides, principally, for an obligation for Member States to issue a return decision against any third-country national staying illegally on their territory. In addition, where a return decision has been issued against a third-country national, but that person has not complied with the obligation to return, whether within the period for voluntary departure, or if no period is granted to that effect, Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/115 requires Member States, in order to ensure the effectiveness of return procedures, to take all measures necessary to carry out the removal of the person concerned, namely, pursuant to Article 3, point 5, of that directive, the physical transportation of the person concerned out of that Member State.

It follows that such national legislation does not meet the clear requirements of Articles 6(1) and 8(1) of Directive 2008/115. The Member States’ right to derogate, pursuant to Article 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/115, from the standards and procedures set out by that directive cannot affect that conclusion.

(see paras 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 41, operative part)
For the purpose of applying the reduced rate of excise duty on beer, the condition laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, according to which a brewery must not operate under licence, is not met if the brewery concerned makes its beer in accordance with an agreement pursuant to which it is authorised to use the trade marks and production process of a third party.

Directive 92/83 seeks to prevent the benefits of a reduction of duty on beer from being granted to breweries, the size and capacity of which could cause distortions in the internal market.

Consequently, Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83 requires that small breweries with an annual beer production of less than 200000 hectolitres should be genuinely autonomous from any other brewery both as regards their legal and economic structure, and as regards their production structure, where they use physically separate premises and do not operate under licence.

The requirement not to operate under licence is one of the requirements aiming to ensure that the small brewery concerned is genuinely independent from any other brewery. It follows that the notion of ‘operat[ing] under licence’ must be interpreted so as to include beer subject to any form of authorisation, from which it results, that that small brewery is not completely independent of the third party which has given it that authorisation. Such is the case as regards an authorisation to exploit a patent, a trade mark or a production process belonging to that third party.

(see paras 21-23, 25, operative part)
There is use of a sign identical to the trade mark, within the meaning of Article 5 of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks, where the economic operator concerned uses the sign in its own commercial communications. That is the case, for example, where an economic operator imports or sends to a warehousekeeper goods bearing a trade mark of which it is not a proprietor with a view to releasing them for marketing.

Concerning the expression ‘in the course of trade’, referred to in Article 5 of the First Directive 89/104 on trade marks, the use of a sign identical to a trade mark constitutes use in the course of trade where it occurs in the context of commercial activity with a view to economic advantage and not as a private matter. That is evidently the case where an economic operator active in the parallel trade of trade-marked goods, imports and stores such goods.

Article 5 of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark registered in one or more Member States may oppose a third party placing goods bearing that trade mark under the duty suspension arrangement after they have been introduced into the EEA and released for free circulation without the consent of that proprietor.

The importation of products without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark concerned and the holding of those products in a tax warehouse before their release for consumption in the European Union has the effect of depriving the proprietor of that mark of the possibility of controlling the conditions of the first placing on the market within the EEA of products bearing its trade mark. Such acts also adversely affect the function of the trade mark of identifying the undertaking from which the products originate and under whose control the initial placing on the market is organised. That analysis is not invalidated by the fact that goods imported and placed under the duty suspension arrangement can subsequently be exported to a third State and thus never be released for consumption in a Member State. That possibility cannot preclude the application of the rules on trade marks to goods imported into the European Union. Furthermore, exportation is also itself an act covered by Article 5(3) of Directive 89/104.

(see paras 48-50, operative part)
Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess the likelihood of confusion that may exist between a Community trade mark and a sign which cover the same or similar goods and which both contain a dominant Arabic word in Latin and Arabic script, those words being visually similar, in circumstances where the relevant public for the Community mark and for the sign at issue has a basic knowledge of written Arabic, the meaning and pronunciation of those words must be taken into account.

(see para. 26, operative part)