ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
As an indispensable instrument for the realization of a market without internal frontiers, Article 30 does not merely prohibit measures emanating from the State which, in themselves, create restrictions on trade between Member States, but may also apply where a Member State abstains from adopting the measures required in order to deal with obstacles to the free movement of goods which are not caused by the State. The fact that a Member State abstains from taking action or fails to adopt adequate measures to prevent obstacles to the free movement of goods that are created, in particular, by actions by private individuals on its territory aimed at products originating in other Member States is just as likely to obstruct intra-Community trade as is a positive act. Article 30 therefore requires the Member States not merely themselves to abstain from adopting measures or engaging in conduct liable to constitute an obstacle to trade but also, when read with Article 5 of the Treaty, to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that the free movement of goods, a fundamental freedom, is complied with on their territory.

Although the Member States, which retain exclusive competence as regards the maintenance of public order and the safeguarding of internal security, unquestionably enjoy a margin of discretion in determining what measures are most appropriate to eliminate barriers to the importation of goods in a given situation and it is therefore not for the Community institutions to act in place of the Member States and to prescribe for them the measures which they must adopt and effectively apply in order to safeguard the free movement of goods on their territories, it nevertheless falls to the Court to verify, in cases brought before it, whether the Member State concerned has adopted appropriate measures for ensuring the free movement of goods.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities - Community aid unduly paid - Recovery - Application of national law - Rule permitting certain criteria to be taken into account in order to exclude recovery - Whether permissible - Conditions

Summary

Community law does not in principle preclude a national rule from allowing non-recovery of Community aid unduly paid, regard being had to criteria such as negligence on the part of the national authorities and the fact that a considerable period of time has elapsed since the payment of the aid in question, on condition that the good faith of the recipient is established and provided that the same conditions apply as for the recovery of purely national payments and that the interests of the Community are fully taken into account. However, fault on the part of a third party with whom the recipient of the aid has entered into a contract constitutes an ordinary commercial risk and concerns more closely the sphere of the recipient of the aid than that of the Community.

As regards, more specifically, the condition relating to the good faith of the recipient, where an exporter draws up and submits a declaration, with a view to obtaining export refunds, which proves to be inaccurate, the mere fact of having prepared that document cannot deprive him of the right to plead his good faith if the declaration is based exclusively on information, provided by the other party to a contract, the accuracy of which he was unable to establish. Likewise, in circumstances where implementation of checks on the manufacturing process and the raw materials used by a third party supplier, for the purposes of ascertaining the quality of the goods, would constitute an obligation disproportionate to the objective pursued, Community law cannot make the exporter's right to plead his good faith as regards the conformity of the goods with the description given by him conditional upon him carrying out such checks, unless there are specific reasons to doubt that the content of the declaration is accurate or special circumstances, such as abnormally low prices or the size of the exporter undertakings' profit margin.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive - Exemption for the letting of immovable property - Exclusion covering provision of accommodation in the hotel sector or in sectors with a similar function - Scope - National legislation applying, for the purpose of distinguishing accommodation in the hotel sector from the letting of dwelling accommodation, the criterion of the duration of the accommodation - Permissible

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

Summary

Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-term accommodation for guests is taxable, as constituting the provision of accommodation in sectors with a function similar to that of the hotel sector.

In that regard, Article 13.B(b)(1) does not preclude taxation in respect of letting agreements concluded for a period of less than six months, if that duration is deemed to reflect the parties' intention. It is, however, for the national court to determine whether, in a case before it, certain factors (such as the automatic renewal of the letting agreement) suggest that the duration stated in the letting agreement does not reflect the parties' true intention, in which case the actual total duration of the accommodation, rather than that specified in the letting agreement, would have to be taken into consideration.

A distinction drawn by Member States, who enjoy a margin of discretion in this regard, between accommodation in the hotel sector and the letting of dwelling accommodation on the basis of its duration constitutes an appropriate criterion of distinction, since one of the ways in which hotel accommodation specifically differs from the letting of dwelling accommodation is the duration of the stay, and the use to this end of the criterion of the provision of short-term accommodation, being defined as less than six months, appears to be a reasonable means by which to ensure that the transactions of taxable persons whose business is similar to the essential function performed by a hotel, namely the provision of temporary accommodation on a commercial basis, are subject to tax.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

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

Summary



Keywords

1 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Dumping margin - Determination of the normal value - Imports from non-market economy countries - Choice of a reference country - Discretion of the institutions - Judicial review - Limits

(Council Regulation No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a))

2 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Dumping margin - Determination of the normal value - Imports from non-market economy countries - Reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country - Determination in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner - Criteria to be used in the choice of a reference country

(Council Regulations No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a), and No 1531/88)

Summary

3 Although the choice, under Article 2(5)(a) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (No 2176), of the reference country to be used in order to determine the normal value of products from non-market economy countries falls within the discretion enjoyed by the institutions when analysing complex economic situations, the exercise of that discretion is not exempt from judicial review by the Court.

In reviewing the exercise of that discretion, the Court is to verify whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers. As regards the choice of reference country, that means that the Court is to verify whether the institutions neglected to take account of essential factors for the purpose of establishing the appropriateness of the country chosen and whether the information contained in the documents in the case was considered with all the care required for the view to be taken that the normal value was determined in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner.

4 It is possible to conclude that the normal value of products originating in a non-market economy country was determined by reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country `in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner' within the meaning of Article 2(5)(a) of Regulation No 2176/84 where, first, the institutions did not receive any alternative proposal to their choice of reference country in circumstances where that country had already been chosen in an earlier proceeding concerning the same product, and where the traders concerned would not have failed, had they considered it necessary, to suggest a more appropriate country, and, secondly, those institutions have convincingly explained their reasons for not opting for other possible reference countries, without the applicant adducing any evidence capable of casting doubt on their analysis. For that reason, Regulation No 1531/88 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium permanganate originating in the People's Republic of China and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on those imports is to be held valid.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty - Definition - Body competent to hear appeals concerning the award of public contracts

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2 Approximation of laws - Procedures for the award of public service contracts - Directive 92/50 - Provision requiring Member States to set up appeal bodies - Non-transposition - Consequences - Power of appeal bodies having competence in relation to procedures for the award of public works contracts and public supply contracts to hear appeals relating to procedures for the award of public service contracts as well - Not a necessary consequence - Obligation for the national courts to determine whether the national law in force provides a possibility of appeal

(Council Directive 92/50, Art. 41)

Summary

3 In order to determine whether a body making a reference to the Court of Justice is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty, which is a question governed by Community law alone, a number of factors must be taken into account, 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. The German Federal Public Procurement Awards Supervisory Board, which is established by law as the only body competent to determine, upon application of rules of law and after hearing the parties, whether lower review bodies have committed an infringement of the provisions applicable to procedures for the award of public contracts, whose decisions are binding and which carries out its task independently and under its own responsibility, satisfies those criteria.

4 It does not follow from Article 41 of Directive 92/50, relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, which requires Member States to ensure that decisions taken by contract-awarding authorities can be reviewed effectively, that, where the directive has not been transposed by the end of the period laid down for that purpose, the appeal bodies of the Member States having competence in relation to procedures for the award of public works contracts and public supply contracts may also hear appeals relating to procedures for the award of public service contracts. However, in order to observe the requirement that domestic law must be interpreted in conformity with the directive and the requirement that the rights of individuals must be protected effectively, the national court must determine whether the relevant provisions of its domestic law allow recognition of a right for individuals to bring an appeal in relation to awards of public service contracts. In this regard, the national court may be required in particular to determine whether such a right of appeal may be exercised before the same bodies as those established to hear appeals concerning the award of public supply contracts and public works contracts.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive - Exemption of the letting of immovable property - Extended to the letting of certain forms of movable property, in particular, of tents, caravans and mobile homes - Not permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2 and 13B(b))

2 Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Consideration by the Court of the merits - Situation to be taken into account - Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

3 A Member State which introduces and maintains in force an administrative provision extending to the letting of certain forms of movable property - in particular, caravans, tents and mobile homes - the exemption from VAT which, pursuant to Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, is restricted exclusively to the letting of immovable property, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive.

4 In proceedings 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 prevailing in the Member State 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 International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Power conferred on the Member States to exclude by means of national legislation an entire category of workers from rights conferred by a decision of the Association Council - None

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 6(3))

2 International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Whether a Turkish national employed as a specialist chef by the same employer belongs to the labour force of a Member State - Consequences - Renewal of the residence permit - Employment as a specialist chef working for the same employer - Included

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

3 International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Access for Turkish nationals to paid employment of their choice in one of the Member States and ancillary right of residence - Conditions - Previous engagement in legal employment - Periods to be taken into consideration when calculating the period of legal employment - Periods not covered by a residence or work permit but not having been considered by the national authorities as illegal residence - Included

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Arts 6(1) and (2))

Summary

4 Article 6(3) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit Member States to adopt national legislation which excludes at the outset whole categories of Turkish migrant workers, such as specialist chefs, from the rights conferred by the three indents of Article 6(1).

5 A Turkish national who has been lawfully employed in a Member State for an uninterrupted period of more than one year as a specialist chef by the same employer is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State and is legally employed within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council. A Turkish national in that situation may accordingly seek the renewal of his permit to reside in the host Member State notwithstanding the fact that he was advised when the work and residence permits were granted that they were for a maximum of three years and restricted to specific work, in this case as a specialist chef, for a specific employer.

6 Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council is to be interpreted as requiring account to be taken, for the purpose of calculating the periods of legal employment referred to in that provision, of short periods during which the Turkish worker did not hold a valid residence or work permit in the host Member State and which are not covered by Article 6(2) of that decision, where the competent authorities of the host Member State have not called in question on that ground the legality of the residence of the worker in the country but have, on the contrary, issued him with a new residence or work permit.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Social security for migrant workers - Special non-contributory benefits - System of coordination provided for under Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 - Scope - Non-contributory and non-means tested disability benefit - Benefit mentioned in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 - Included

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 4(2a) and 10a and Annex IIa, Section L(f), and Council Regulation No 1247/92)

2 Social security for migrant workers - Special non-contributory benefits - System of coordination provided for under Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 - Award of benefits in accordance with the legislation of the State of residence - Breach of Article 51 of the Treaty by reason of the non-application of the principle of waiver of residence clauses - No breach

(EC Treaty, Art. 51; Council Regulations No 1408/71, Arts 10 and 10a, and No 1247/92)

Summary

3 On a proper construction of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as subsequently amended by Regulation No 1247/92, read in conjunction with Annex IIa, a non-contributory and non-means tested benefit for disabled persons which is mentioned in Annex IIa, such as disability living allowance in the United Kingdom, falls within the scope of that provision and is therefore a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result that the position of a person who, after 1 June 1992 when Regulation No 1247/92 entered into force, satisfied the conditions for the award of that benefit is governed exclusively by the system of coordination established by the said Article 10a.

4 Regulation No 1247/92 amending Regulation No 1408/71 and adding Article 10a thereto is not contrary to Article 51 of the Treaty in so far as it sets aside, in the case of the special non-contributory benefits to which it refers, the principle of waiver of residence clauses laid down in Article 10 of Regulation No 1408/71. The very purpose of the coordination rules governing special non-contributory benefits established by Article 10a is to protect the interests of migrant workers in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Treaty, and that article does not prohibit the Community legislature from imposing limits on the advantages which it confers on workers.

The possibility that the recipient of a disability allowance with the characteristics of a non-contributory benefit, having established his residence in another Member State, might not satisfy the conditions applied by his new State of residence to the award of invalidity benefit or might receive a lower benefit there than that which he hitherto received in another Member State is irrelevant in regard to the validity of the system established by Article 10a, since, in the absence of harmonization in social security matters, the Member States remain competent to define the conditions for granting social security benefits, even if they make them more strict, provided that the conditions adopted do not give rise to overt or disguised discrimination between Community workers.
Case C-341/96

Commission of the European Communities

v

Federal Republic of Germany

‛Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/36/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period’

Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 23 October 1997 I-7272

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) , 16 December 1997 I-7275

Summary of the Judgment

Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations not contested

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)
In the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity, on the one hand, to comply with its obligations under Community law and, on the other, effectively to put forward its defence to the complaints made by the Commission.

The subject-matter of an action brought under Article 169 is therefore delimited by the pre-litigation procedure provided for by that article. Consequently, the action cannot be founded on any complaints other than those formulated in the reasoned opinion, which must contain a cogent and detailed exposition of the reasons which led the Commission to the conclusion that the Member State concerned had failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Protection of the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577 - Scope - Contract of guarantee for the repayment of a debt contracted by a person acting within the course of his trade or profession - Excluded

(Council Directive 85/577, Art. 2, first indent)

Summary

On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 2 of Directive 85/577 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, which defines a `consumer' for the purposes of the directive, a contract of guarantee concluded by a natural person who is not acting in the course of his trade or profession does not come within the scope of the directive where it guarantees repayment of a debt contracted by another person who, for his part, is acting within the course of his trade or profession.

In that connection, although it cannot be excluded that the directive applies to a contract of guarantee, it is apparent from the wording of Article 1 thereof and from the ancillary nature of guarantees that the directive covers only a guarantee ancillary to a contract whereby, in the context of `doorstep selling', a consumer assumes obligations towards the trader with a view to obtaining goods or services from him. Furthermore, since the directive is designed to protect only consumers, a guarantee comes within the scope of the directive only where, in accordance with the first indent of Article 2, the guarantor has entered into a commitment for a purpose which can be regarded as unconnected with his trade or profession.