ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/44) (see paras 9-10, 13)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 11)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paras 10-13, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences – Directive 97/13 – Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding individual licences – Optimal use of scarce resources – Imposition of a charge on holders of individual licenses for the use of radio frequencies

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/13, Art. 11(2))

Summary

The requirements, laid down in Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications, that a charge imposed on operators of telecommunications services for the use of scarce resources must seek to ensure optimal use of those resources and must take into account the need to foster the development of innovative services and competition, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for a fee to be levied on operators of telecommunications services holding individual licences for the use of radio frequencies, but does not allocate a specific use to the income derived from that fee, and which significantly increases the fee for one particular technology but leaves it unchanged for another.

Directive 97/13 does not in any way indicate that those requirements would mean that such a charge must be used for a particular purpose, or that a particular use must be subsequently made, of the income from that charge, by the Member State concerned. It follows that the Member State concerned may freely use that income.

Furthermore, those requirements cannot preclude Member States from establishing, for the purposes of determining the amount of that charge, a distinction, even a significant one, between, on the one hand, the digital or analogue technology used and, on the other, within each technology, the different uses which are made of it, so that equality of opportunity is secured as between the various economic operators.

In addition, those requirements cannot, in principle, prevent Member States from increasing, even significantly, the charge payable for one particular technology in response to both technical and economic developments on the market for telecommunications services, but leaving unchanged the charge for another technology, provided that the different amounts imposed reflect the respective economic values of the uses made of the scarce resource.

Lastly, the mere fact that such an increase in the amount of the charge is substantial does not in itself mean that this is incompatible with the purpose that a charge for the use of scarce resources must have under Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13, in so far as the requirements arising from that purpose are respected, that is to say, provided that the charge is neither excessive nor too low.

(see paras 32, 34-36, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/36) (see paras 8-12

)

Subject of the case

Re

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take or to communicate within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17).

Operative part

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 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Refund of excess

(Council Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, Art. 183)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Refund of excess

(Council Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, Art. 183)

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Refund of excess

(Council Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, Art. 183)

Summary

1. Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2006/138, in conjunction with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides, with retrospective effect, for the extension of the period within which excess value added tax is to be refunded, in so far as that legislation deprives the taxable person of the right enjoyed before the entry into force of the legislation to obtain default interest on the sum to be refunded.

(see para. 41, operative part 1)

2. Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2006/138, in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the normal period for refunding excess valued added tax, at the expiry of which default interest is payable on the sum to be refunded, is extended when a tax investigation is instigated, the effect of the extension being that such interest is payable only from the date on which the investigation is completed, the excess having already been carried forward during the three tax periods following that in which it arose. On the other hand, the fact that the normal period is 45 days is not contrary to that provision.

(see para. 61, operative part 2)

3. Article 183 of the Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2006/138, is to be interpreted as not precluding the refund of excess valued added tax by way of set-off.

Member States have a certain freedom as regards the conditions for the refund of excess value added tax, provided that the refund is made within a reasonable period of time by a payment in liquid funds or equivalent means and the taxable person is not exposed to any financial risk.

(see paras 64, 67, operative part 3)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Income tax – Deductibility of gifts to research and teaching institutions limited to gifts to domestic institutions

(Arts 56 EC and 58 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 40)

Summary

A Member State which authorises the deduction from tax of gifts to research and teaching institutions exclusively where those institutions are established in that State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

For national tax legislation which distinguishes between gifts to national institutions and those to institutions established in other Member States to be regarded as compatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, the difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable, or must be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest. In order to be justified, moreover, the difference in treatment must not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of the legislation in question.

First, a criterion which distinguishes between taxpayers exclusively on the basis of the place of establishment of the recipient of the gift, by definition, cannot be a valid criterion for assessing the objective comparability of the situations or, consequently, for establishing an objective difference between them. Secondly, while the promotion of research and development may indeed constitute an overriding reason in the public interest, national legislation reserving the benefit of a tax credit solely to research carried out in the Member State concerned is directly contrary to the objective of European Union policy in the field of research and technical development. In accordance with Article 163(2) EC, that policy aims in particular to remove the fiscal obstacles to cooperation in the field of research, and cannot therefore be implemented by the promotion of research and development at national level.

(see paras 29, 35, 37, 44, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Quality of water intended for human consumption

–

Directive 98/83

–

Implementation by Member States

–

Authorisation of derogations from the parametric values fixed by the directive

–

Conditions

–

National legislation not observing those conditions

–

Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 258 TFEU; Council Directive 98/83, Art. 9(3)) (see paras 28-29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Incomplete, incorrect transposition of Article 9(3)(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32) – Distribution of drinking water not meeting the parametric values required – Scheme of derogations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly and completely Article 9(3)(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Standstill rule in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol – Scope – Turkish national entering into self-employment in breach of the conditions attaching to his leave to remain in a Member State

(Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 41(1))

Summary

Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a Turkish national who, having leave to remain in a Member State on condition that he does not engage in any business or profession, nevertheless enters into self‑employment in breach of that condition and later applies to the national authorities for further leave to remain on the basis of the business which he has meanwhile established.

A standstill clause, such as that embodied in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, does not operate in the same way as a substantive rule by rendering inapplicable the relevant substantive law which it replaces, but as a quasi‑procedural rule which specifies, ratione temporis , the provisions of a Member State’s legislation that must be referred to for the purposes of assessing the position of a Turkish national who wishes to exercise freedom of establishment in a Member State.

The standstill clause must accordingly be understood as applying to a stage before the merits of the case are assessed and before an assessment is made as to whether there is any abuse of rights which may be imputed to the party concerned. Consequently, the fact that an individual has not complied with the conditions attaching to his leave to remain is irrelevant for the purposes of applying Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol.

(see paras 28, 32, 34, 46, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances – Directive 96/82 – Land-use planning

(Council Directive 96/82, as amended by Directive 2003/105, Art. 12(1))

2. Environment – Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances – Directive 96/82 – Land-use planning

(Council Directive 96/82, as amended by Directive 2003/105, Art. 12(1))

Summary

1. Article 12(1) of Directive 96/82 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation which it imposes on Member States to ensure that account is taken of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by that directive and buildings of public use applies also to a public authority responsible for issuing planning permissions, even when it has no discretion in the exercise of that prerogative.

(see para. 35, operative part 1)

2. The obligation set out in Article 12(1) of Directive 96/82 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105, to take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by that directive and buildings of public use does not require the competent national authorities to prohibit the siting of a building of public use when such a building is not separated by an appropriate distance from an existing establishment, when there are already several comparable buildings of public use at a distance from the establishment which is no greater or not significantly greater, when the operator does not – as a result of the new project – have to reckon with additional requirements concerning the limitation of the consequences of an accident, and when the requirements relating to healthy living and working conditions are satisfied. By contrast, that obligation precludes national legislation that provides that it is mandatory to issue an authorisation for the siting of such a building without the hazards connected with the siting of the building within the perimeter of those distances having been duly assessed at the planning stage or at that of the individual decision.

(see para. 53, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Refund of excess

(Council Directive 2006/112, art. 183)

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax by requiring taxable persons whose tax declaration for a given tax period records an excess within the meaning of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 to carry forward that excess or a part of it to the following tax period if the taxable person has not paid the supplier the full amount for the purchase in question, and on account of that fact, as a result of that requirement, certain taxable persons whose tax declarations regularly record such an excess may be required more than once to carry forward the excess to the following tax period.

Under the system set up by Directive 2006/112, the chargeability of VAT and the creation and exercise of the right to deduct are, in principle, independent of whether or not the consideration, including VAT, due for a transaction has already been paid. Moreover, under the same directive, the creation of the right to deduct is subject only in certain particular cases covered by that directive to the condition that the consideration due for the transaction on which the deductible VAT arises should already have been paid. Apart from those particular cases, that right to deduct exists independently of that condition. The fact of making the refund of a deductible VAT excess subject to that condition, that refund thus constituting the stage following the creation of that right, is liable to have the same effects on the right to deduct as the application of the same condition when that right arises. Accordingly, it is such as to call into question the useful effect of that right to deduct. Consequently, the payment of consideration due for the transaction giving rise to deductible VAT cannot constitute a condition, within the meaning of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112, which the Member States may lay down for the refund of a deductible VAT excess.

(see paras 48, 52-53, 56, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Recognition and enforcement of judgments – Grounds for refusing enforcement – Compliance with the judgment in the Member State of origin – Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 34, 35, 43 to 45)

Summary

Article 45 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as precluding the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking a declaration of enforceability of a judgment on a ground other than those set out in Articles 34 and 35 thereof, such as compliance with that judgment in the Member State of origin.

Compliance with a judicial decision does not in any way deprive that decision of its enforceable nature, or lead to its being given, when enforced in another Member State, legal effects that it would not have in the Member State of origin. Such a ground may, by contrast, be brought before the court or tribunal responsible for enforcement in the Member State in which enforcement is sought. Once that judgment is incorporated into the legal order of the Member State in which enforcement is sought, national legislation of that Member State relating to enforcement applies in the same way as to judgments delivered by national courts.

(see paras 39-40, 43 and operative part)