ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48 – Access to or pursuit of a regulated profession on the same conditions as for nationals – Professions deemed to be regulated professions – Application of the mechanism of recognition provided for in point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 of the directive, irrespective of whether or not the person concerned is a member of a recognised association or professional organisation

(Council Directive 89/48, second subparagraph of Art. 1(d) and point (b) of the first subparagraph of Art.3)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48 – Access to or pursuit of a regulated profession on the same conditions as for nationals – Professions deemed to be regulated professions – Access based on professional experience – Conditions

(Council Directive 89/48, point (b) of the first subparagraph of Art. 3)

Summary

1. Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, must be interpreted as meaning that the mechanism of recognition which it provides for is applicable where, in the Member State of origin, the profession at issue falls under the second subparagraph of Article 1(d) of that directive, irrespective of whether the person concerned is or is not a full member of the association or organisation concerned.

(see para. 26, operative part 1)

2. Before account can be taken, for the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19 9, of professional experience relied on by a person seeking to obtain authorisation to pursue a regulated profession in the host Member State, the following three conditions must be satisfied:

- the experience relied on must consist of full-time work for at least two years during the previous 10 years;

- that work must have consisted of the continuous and regular pursuit of a range of professional activities which characterise the profession concerned in the Member State of origin, but that work need not have encompassed all those activities, and

- the profession, as it is normally pursued in the Member State of origin, must be equivalent, in respect of the activities which it covers, to the profession which the person has sought authorisation to pursue in the host Member State.

(see para. 42, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a)

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 12(1)(d), and Annex IV(a))

Summary

Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 2006/105, requires Member States to take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to that directive in their natural range, prohibiting deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.

The transposition of that provision requires the Member States not only to adopt a comprehensive legislative framework but also to implement concrete and specific protection measures. Similarly, the system of strict protection presupposes the adoption of coherent and coordinated measures of a preventive nature. Such a system of strict protection must therefore enable the effective avoidance of deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to that directive.

Thus, by failing to establish a programme of measures ensuring strict protection of the European hamster ( Cricetus cricetus ) and making it possible actually to avoid deterioration or destruction of the breeding sites or resting places of that species, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43.

(see paras 18-21, 37, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States – Directive 2003/49 – Scope

(Council Directive 2003/49, Art. 1(1))

Summary

Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national tax law under which loan interest paid by a company established in one Member State to an associated company in another Member State is incorporated into the basis of assessment of the business tax payable by the former company.

That provision, read in the light of recitals 2 to 4 in the preamble to that directive, aims to avoid legal double taxation of cross-border payments of interest by prohibiting the taxation of interest in the source Member State to the detriment of the actual beneficial owner. It thus concerns solely the tax position of the interest creditor. The provisions of national law on the basis of assessment of the payer of the interest, such as the rules on the deductibility of certain expenditure and the nature of that expenditure, thus form part of the fiscal policy of each Member State.

So, in the absence of a provision governing the rules for calculating the basis of assessment of the payer of interest, the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49 cannot extend beyond the exemption it lays down.

(see paras 28, 33-34, 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Union law – Direct effect – National taxes incompatible with Union law – Repayment – Refusal – Condition – Unjust enrichment – Definition – Passing on directly to the purchaser of amounts wrongly paid by the taxpayer

Summary

The rules of Union law on recovery of sums wrongly paid must be interpreted to the effect that recovery of sums wrongly paid can give rise to unjust enrichment only when the amounts wrongly paid by a taxpayer under a tax levied in a Member State in breach of Union law have been passed on direct to the purchaser. Consequently, Union law precludes a Member State from refusing reimbursement of a tax wrongfully levied on the ground that the amounts wrongly paid by the taxpayer have been set off by a saving made as a result of the concomitant abolition of other levies, for such a set-off cannot be regarded, from the point of view of Union law, as unjust enrichment in relation to that tax.

The direct passing on to the purchaser of the tax unduly paid being the sole exception to the right to reimbursement of tax levied in breach of Union law, the national court, applying its domestic law, may not take account of possible means of refusing reimbursement of an unlawful tax other than its setting off.

(see paras 25-26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Ambit – Civil and commercial matters – Definition

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 1)

2. Approximation of laws – Respect for intellectual property rights – Directive 2004/48 – Legal costs

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48, Art. 14)

Summary

1. The concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation applies to the recognition and enforcement of a decision of a court or tribunal that contains an order to pay a fine in order to ensure compliance with a judgment given in a civil and commercial matter.

Even though that fine which must be paid to a Member State is recovered automatically, and the actual recovery is made by the public authorities, those aspects cannot be regarded as decisive as regards the nature of the right to enforcement. The nature of that right depends on the nature of the subjective right, for infringement of which enforcement was ordered. The right to exploit exclusively an invention protected by its patent is clearly covered by civil and commercial matters within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001.

(see paras 42, 44, operative part 1)

2. The costs relating to an exequatur procedure brought in a Member State, in the course of which the recognition and enforcement is sought of a judgment given in another Member State in proceedings seeking to enforce an intellectual property right, fall within Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

That interpretation is consistent with the general objective of Directive 2004/48, which aims to approximate the legislative systems of the Member States in order to ensure a high, equivalent and homogeneous level of intellectual property protection, and with the specific aim of Article 14 which is to prevent the injured party from being deterred from bringing proceedings in order to protect intellectual property rights. In accordance with those objectives, the author of the infringement of the intellectual property rights must generally bear all the financial consequences of his conduct.

(see paras 49-50, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme – Action brought by an undertaking having received individual aid granted under that scheme and that must be recovered – Admissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 55-60)

2. Actions for annulment – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it – Commission decision on the recovery of State aid (see paras 68-70)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 97)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 103-105)

5. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary in order to support the operative part – Plea in law ineffective (see para. 109)

6. Appeals – Pleas in law – Distortion of national law relied on as evidence – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.) (see para. 125)

7. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see para. 131)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑189/03 ASM Brescia v Commission by which that court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑22/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Energy policy – Energy savings – Directive 2002/91/EC – Energy performance of buildings – Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed time-limit

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 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that directive;
A Member State which adopts and maintains in force legislation under which taxpayers who transfer their residence to another Member State must include, in the tax base for the last tax year in which they were treated as resident taxpayers, any income not yet charged to tax, fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.

Even though the Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for persons, according to their wording, are directed at ensuring that foreign nationals and companies are treated in the host Member State in the same way as nationals of that State, they also preclude rules which preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement. That is true of national legislation which triggers an obligation for the taxpayer transferring his residence to another Member State to pay tax before taxpayers who continue to reside in the first Member State are required to do so. That difference in treatment, which is capable of placing persons who transfer their residence abroad at a financial disadvantage, cannot be explained by an objective difference of situation. From the point of view of legislation of a Member State designed to tax realised income, the situation of a person transferring his residence to another Member State is similar to that of a person maintaining his residence in the former Member State. It follows that such a difference in treatment constitutes an obstacle to the exercise of the freedoms laid down in Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.

That obstacle cannot be justified by the need to ensure effective recovery of the tax debt, in so far as the cooperation mechanisms existing at EU level between the authorities of the Member States, in particular those provided for by Directive 2008/55, on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, are sufficient to enable the Member State of origin to recover the tax debt in another Member State. The obligation imposed by that national legislation is therefore disproportionate in relation to the aim to facilitate recovery of the tax debt.

Nor is that obstacle justified by the need to preserve the balanced allocation between the Member States of powers of taxation, given that the Member State of origin does not, on the transfer of a taxpayer’s residence to another Member State, lose the power to exercise its powers of taxation in relation to activities already carried on in its territory and accordingly need not give up its right to determine the amount of the corresponding taxation.

Lastly, in the absence of a direct link, in the national legislation, between, on one hand, the tax advantage represented by the possibility of charging income to a number of tax periods and, on the other, the offsetting of that advantage by some kind of tax charge, that legislation cannot be justified by the need to preserve the coherence of the tax system.

(see paras 52, 53, 57, 59-61, 67, 68, 79, 87, 88, 101, operative part 1)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2010 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑295/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/43/EC – Company law – Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. 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 EC) (see para. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 July 2010 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑513/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/66/EC – Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/66) (see paras 9-12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 2006 L 266, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C-526/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 91/271/EEC – Urban waste-water treatment – Article 11(1) and (2) – Discharge of industrial waste water into collecting systems and urban waste water treatment plants – Subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisations – Lack of authorisation

1. 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)

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

The Court:

1. Declares that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial site of Estação de Serviço Sobritos Lda, 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;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 – Commission v Germany

(Case C-453/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Application of a reduced rate – Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption – Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Discretionary power of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 96 and 98 and Annex III) (see paras 44, 47-55)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Reduced rate – Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 – Iride, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua v Commission

(Case C-329/09 P)

Appeal – State aid – Aid granted to public utilities – Tax exemptions – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Standing – Legal interest in bringing proceedings

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 34-36)

2. Appeals – Classification of an application made by the respondent seeking only the replacement of grounds – Application inadmissible if there is no legal interest in bringing proceedings (see para. 50)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑300/02 AMGA v Commission , by which that court rejected as inadmissible an application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Iride SpA to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings;