ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6

Article 9 of that directive provides as follows: ‘1. For services which fall outside the scope of the universal service, Member States may introduce general authorisations to the extent necessary to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements. 2. For services which fall within the scope of the universal service, Member States may introduce authorisation procedures, including individual licences, to the extent necessary in order to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements and to ensure the provision of the universal service. The granting of authorisations may: — be made subject to universal service obligations, — if necessary and justified, impose requirements concerning the quality, availability and performance of the relevant services, — where appropriate, be subject to an obligation to make a financial contribution to the sharing mechanisms referred to in Article 7, if the provision of the universal service entails a net cost and represents an unfair burden on the universal service provider(s), designated in accordance with Article 4, — where appropriate, be subject to an obligation to make a financial contribution to the national regulatory authority’s operational costs referred to in Article 22, — where appropriate, be made subject to or impose an obligation to respect working conditions laid down by national legislation. Obligations and requirements referred to in the first indent and in Article 3 may only be imposed on designated universal service providers. Except in the case of undertakings that have been designated as universal service providers in accordance with Article 4, authorisations may not: — be limited in number, — for the same elements of the universal service or parts of the national territory, impose universal service obligations and, at the same time, financial contributions to a sharing mechanism, — duplicate conditions which are applicable to undertakings by virtue of other, non-sector-specific national legislation, — impose technical or operational conditions other than those necessary to fulfil the obligations of this Directive. 3. The procedures, obligations and requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be transparent, accessible, non-discriminatory, proportionate, precise and unambiguous, made public in advance and based on objective criteria. Member States shall ensure that the reasons for refusing or withdrawing an authorisation in whole or in part are communicated to the applicant and shall establish an appeal procedure.’
43

In those circumstances, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) In cases where a credit institution operates as an investment firm to which funds have been transferred for the acquisition of debt securities issued by the same credit institution, but the securities issue does not become effective and the securities are not transferred to the ownership of the person who has paid the funds, while the funds have already been debited from that person’s bank account and transferred to an account opened in the name of the credit institution and are not repayable, and the national legislative intent in such a case is not clear with regard to the application of a specific protection scheme, can Article 1(1) of [Directive 94/19] and Article 1(4) of [Directive 97/9] be applied directly in order to determine the applicable coverage scheme, and is the intended use of the funds the decisive criterion for that purpose? Do those provisions of the directives display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that they may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover? (2) Should Article 2(2) of [Directive 97/9], which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the investor-compensation scheme, be understood and interpreted as also covering claims for repayment of funds that an investment firm owes to investors and that are not held in the name of the investors? (3) If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does Article 2(2) of [Directive 97/9], which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the compensation scheme, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that that provision may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover? (4) Should Article 1(1) of [Directive 94/19] be understood and interpreted as meaning that the definition of “deposit” under that directive also includes funds transferred from a personal account, with the person’s consent, to an account opened in the name of a credit institution which is held at the same credit institution and is intended to pay for the future debt securities issue of that institution? (5) Are Articles 7(1) and 8(3) of [Directive 94/19], taken together, to be understood as meaning that a deposit insurance payment up to the amount specified in Article 7(1) must be made to every person whose claim can be established before the date on which the determination or ruling referred to in Article 1(3)(i) and (ii) of [that directive] has been made?’
11

Article 8 of Regulation No 1173/2011, headed ‘Sanctions concerning the manipulation of statistics’, provides: ‘1. The Council, acting on a recommendation by the Commission, may decide to impose a fine on a Member State that intentionally or by serious negligence misrepresents deficit and debt data relevant for the application of Articles 121 or 126 TFEU, or for the application of [Protocol No 12] on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU. 2. The fines referred to in paragraph 1 shall be effective, dissuasive and proportionate to the nature, seriousness and duration of the misrepresentation. The amount of the fine shall not exceed 0.2% of [the gross domestic product] of the Member State concerned. 3. The Commission may conduct all investigations necessary to establish the existence of the misrepresentations referred to in paragraph 1. It may decide to initiate an investigation when it finds that there are serious indications of the existence of facts liable to constitute such a misrepresentation. The Commission shall investigate the putative misrepresentations taking into account any comments submitted by the Member State concerned. … Upon completion of its investigation, and before submitting any proposal to the Council, the Commission shall give to the Member State concerned the opportunity of being heard in relation to the matters under investigation. The Commission shall base any proposal to the Council only on facts on which the Member State concerned has had the opportunity to comment. The Commission shall fully respect the rights of defence of the Member State concerned during the investigations. 4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning: (a) detailed criteria establishing the amount of the fine referred to in paragraph 1; … (c) detailed rules of procedure aimed at guaranteeing the rights of the defence, access to the file, legal representation, confidentiality and provisions as to timing and the collection of the fines referred to in paragraph 1. …’
Transport—Road transport—Regulation No 1071/2009—Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator—National electronic register of road transport undertakings—Failure to create such a register and lack of interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States—Failure to fulfil obligations

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1071/2009, Art. 16(1) and (5))

(see para. 22, operative part.)
The first sentence of Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as meaning that, when a forest area eligible for Natura 2000 support is owned in part by the State and in part by a private owner, account must be taken of the ratio of the size of the part owned by the State to the size of the part owned by that private owner in calculating the amount of support to be paid to the latter.

The fact that part of a plot of a Natura 2000 forest area does not fall within the scope of Natura 2000 support, on that ground that it is owned by the State, does not eliminate the need to compensate for the restrictions on the use of plots in that area belonging to a private owner as a result of the implementation of the requirements set out in those directives.

Accordingly, the complete exclusion of a Natura 2000 forest area owned both by a private owner and by the State from the scope of the first sentence of Article 42(1) of Regulation No 1698/2005 would necessarily eliminate the compensatory aim of the Natura 2000 payments system.

(see paras 27, 28, 36, operative part)
Article 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘cost of transport’, within the meaning of that provision, includes the supplement charged by the forwarding agent to the importer, corresponding to that agent’s profit margin and costs, in respect of the service which it provided in organising the transport of the imported goods to the customs territory of the European Union.

As the Netherlands Government and the European Commission maintain, it follows, first, from paragraph 30 of the judgment of 6 June 1990, Unifert (C‑11/89, EU:C:1990:237) and, in particular, from the Court’s use of the words ‘all’ and ‘main or incidental’, that the concept of ‘cost of transport’ must be interpreted broadly. Second, the decisive criterion for costs to be capable of being regarded as coming within the term ‘cost of transport’ within the meaning of Article 32(1)(e)(i) of the Customs Code is that they are connected with the movement of goods to the customs territory of the European Union, irrespective of whether those costs are inherent in or necessary for the actual transport of those goods.

Consequently, the ‘cost of transport’ within the meaning of that provision is not necessarily limited to the amounts charged by the carriers which themselves carry out the transport of the imported goods. Amounts charged by other service providers, such as a forwarding agent, may constitute costs of that kind if they are connected with the movement of the goods to the customs territory of the European Union.

(see paras 25, 26, 31, operative part)
Case C‑36/16

Minister Finansów

v

Posnania Investment SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Article 14(1) — Taxable transactions — Meaning of ‘supply of goods for consideration’ — Transfer to the State or to a local authority of immovable property in order to settle a tax debt — Not included)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 11 May 2017

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of goods — Concept — Meaning of supply of goods for consideration — Transfer to the State or to a local authority of immovable property in order to settle a tax debt — Not included

(Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 2(1)(a) and 14(1))

Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of ownership of immovable property by a person subject to value added tax, for the benefit of the State Treasury or a local authority of a Member State, occurring, as in the main proceedings, in payment of tax arrears, does not constitute a supply of goods for consideration that is subject to value added tax.

Concerning the question whether the transaction transferring ownership of immovable property to a public entity — in this instance, the transfer of land to a municipality — in payment of tax arrears can be considered to have been made for consideration, it should be noted that a supply of goods is made ‘for consideration’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the VAT Directive, only if there is a legal relationship between the supplier and the purchaser entailing reciprocal performance, the price received by the supplier constituting the value actually given in return for the goods supplied (judgments of 27 April 1999, Kuwait Petroleum, C‑48/97, EU:C:1999:203, paragraph 26, and of 21 November 2013, Dixons Retail, C‑494/12, EU:C:2013:758, paragraph 32).

However, the obligation of the taxpayer, as a debtor owing a tax debt, to make payment to the tax authorities, as creditor of that debt, is unilateral in nature inasmuch as the payment of the tax by that taxpayer results only in the statutory discharge of its tax debt, even if this is done, as in the present case, by means of the provision of immovable property.

A tax is a compulsory charge imposed by the sovereign power of the public authorities on the resources of persons coming under their fiscal jurisdiction. That charge is intended to be used, through public budgets, for services in the public interest. Such a charge, whether it relates to a sum of money or, as in the present case, to tangible property, does not result in any performance on the part of the public authority or, therefore, in any corresponding performance on the part of the taxable person.

(see paras 31, 33, 34, 42, operative part)
Case C‑330/16

Piotr Zarski

v

Andrzej Stadnicki

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Commercial lease contracts of indefinite duration — Late rent payments — Contracts concluded before the period for transposing that directive had expired — National rules — Exclusion of such contracts from the temporal scope of that directive)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 1 June 2017

Approximation of laws — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7 — Commercial lease contracts of indefinite duration concluded before the period for transposing that directive had expired — Late rent payments which occurred after that directive had been transposed — National rules excluding such contracts from the temporal scope of that directive — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/35, Art. 6(3) and 2011/7, Art. 12(4))

Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the scope of that directive late payments in the performance of a contract concluded before 16 March 2013, even where those late payments occur after that date.

Thus, as regards the wording of Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7, it must be noted that the EU legislature uses the term ‘contracts concluded’ and not the term ‘commercial transactions’, which is used in other provision of that directive. The examination of the wording of that provision therefore leads to the conclusion that, by using the term ‘contracts concluded’, the EU legislature intended to allow Member States to exclude from the scope of Directive 2011/7 contractual relationships concluded before 16 March 2013, in their entirety, including the effects of those contractual relationships which arise after that date.

It follows that, where a Member State has made use of the power granted to it under Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7, contracts concluded before 16 March 2013 continue — subject to Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 2000/35 — to be governed by Directive 2000/35, including as regards their future effects, notwithstanding the fact that that directive is, in principle, repealed as from that date. In this case, Directive 2011/7 cannot apply to the effects of such contracts which occur as from 16 March 2013, since those effects cannot be subject to both Directive 2000/35 and Directive 2011/7.

It follows from the foregoing that the claims relating to payments due after 16 March 2013 cannot fall within the scope of Directive 2011/7 where the contract, pursuant to which those payments are due, was concluded before that date and the Member State concerned has made use of the power granted to it under Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7.

(see paras 27, 29, 32-34, operative part)
Case C‑193/16

E

v

Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society — Present and genuine threat — Concept — Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 13 July 2017

Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38 — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society — Concept of genuine and present threat — Person imprisoned at the time the expulsion decision was adopted, without the prospect of being released in the near future — Included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 27(2), second para.)

The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person is imprisoned at the time the expulsion decision was adopted, without the prospect of being released in the near future, does not exclude that his conduct represents, as the case may be, a present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of the society of the host Member State.

(see para. 27, operative part)
The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clofentezine, dicamba, difenoconazole, diflubenzuron, imazaquin, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen as active substances, must be interpreted as meaning that the date of 31 December 2008 to which it refers corresponds, for an already authorised plant protection product containing one of the active substances listed in the annex to that directive, to the deadline by which all the active substances contained in that plant protection product, other than those listed in the annex to Directive 2008/69, must have been included on the list in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, in order for an obligation to carry out the re-evaluation of that product, provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(2), to arise.

(see para. 25, operative part)
Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting entity has terminated the contract concluded with one undertaking for the provision of security guard services at its facilities, then concluded a new contract for the supply of those services with another undertaking, which refuses to take on the employees of the first undertaking, that situation falls within the concept of a ‘transfer of an undertaking [or] business’, within the meaning of that provision, when the equipment essential to the performance of those services has been taken over by the second undertaking.

Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the loss of a customer by an operator following the award of a service contract to another operator does not fall within the concept of a ‘transfer of an undertaking [or] business’, within the meaning of Article 1(1).

In that regard, the Court has already held that the mere loss of a service contract to a competitor cannot by itself indicate the existence of a transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23 (judgment of 11 March 1997, Süzen, C‑13/95, EU:C:1997:141, paragraph 16). However, a provision of national law that generally excludes the loss of a customer by an operator following the award of a service contract to another operator from the scope of that concept does not allow all the facts characterising the transaction in question to be taken into consideration.

(see paras 34, 36, 38, operative part 1, 2)
Although it is true that the system of protection established by Regulation No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) is not identical to that provided for by Regulation No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, those two systems are, essentially, the same in nature, since their objectives and characteristics are similar. The objectives of Regulation No 1234/2007 are similar to those of Regulation No 510/2006 inasmuch as a geographical indication registered pursuant to Regulation No 510/2006 offers consumers a guarantee of quality with regard to the products bearing that indication.

Furthermore, the characteristics of the system of protection provided for by Regulation No 1234/2007 are similar to those established by Regulation No 510/2006. First, the procedure for registering designations of origin and geographical indications under Regulation No 1234/2007 is based on powers shared between the Member State concerned and the Commission, since the decision to register a designation may be taken by the Commission only if the Member State concerned has submitted to it an application for that purpose and such an application may be made only if the Member State has checked that it is justified. Secondly, the fact that the system of protection laid down in Regulation No 1234/2007 and Regulation No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine is exhaustive in nature is also evidenced by the transitional arrangements for existing national geographical designations.

It follows that, as regards the designations of origin which are protected under Regulation No 1234/2007, that regulation contains a uniform and exclusive system of protection, with the result that there is no need for the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office to apply the relevant rules of national law which are the basis for the entry of those designations of origin in the E-Bacchus database. Regulation No 1234/2007 precludes the application of a national system of protection for geographical indications that are protected under that regulation.

(see paras 76, 80, 85, 86, 91, 96, 103)