ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – ‘Malt beer base’, alcoholic strength by volume of 14% and obtained from brewed beer which has been clarified and then subjected to ultrafiltration which has the effect of reducing the concentration of ingredients characteristic of beer

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I)

Summary

Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 2587/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a liquid described as a ‘malt beer base’ with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14% and obtained from brewed beer which has been clarified and then subjected to ultrafiltration, by which the concentration of ingredients such as bitter substances and proteins has been reduced, must be classified under heading 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to that regulation, as amended.

On the one hand, since the ‘malt beer base’ is not an end product intended for consumption but rather an intermediate product for use in the production of a mixed drink, it should not be considered to be an alcoholic beverage. On the other, the ‘malt beer base’ is not obtained purely and simply by fermentation but is thereafter subjected to ultrafiltration. As a result of this additional treatment, the product in question, which is produced from brewed beer, loses the objective properties and characteristics particular to beer under heading 2203 of the Combined Nomenclature. The objective properties and characteristics of the ‘malt beer base’ correspond, by contrast, to those of ethyl alcohol under heading 2208 or are, in any event, akin to those properties and characteristics.

(see paras 34, 37, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Capital duty charged on capital companies

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 4(2) and 7(2))

Summary

Article 4(2) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from reintroducing a capital duty on a loan taken up by a capital company, if the creditor is entitled to a share in the profits of the company, when that Member State has previously waived the levying of that tax.

The words ‘may … continue to be subject to capital duty’, appearing in Article 4(2) of Directive 69/335 must be interpreted as implying that, in order to be capable of being subjected to capital duty by Member States, the transactions referred to in that paragraph must not only have been taxable, for the purposes of that provision, by virtue of the national law in force at 1 July 1984, but must also subsequently have been continuously subject to such taxation.

(see paras 37, 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. 226 EC) (see para. 25)

2. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Special areas of conservation – Obligations of the Member States – Establishing of priorities – Failure to accomplish that by means of an order approving the corresponding management instruments – Failure to adopt the measures necessary in order to prevent the deterioration of natural habitats and the significant disturbance of species – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(4) and 6(1) and (2)) (see paras 37-38, 48-49, 53-54, 62-64, operative part)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible (Art. 226 CE) (see para. 47)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Sites of Community importance – Conservation measures – Macaronesian biogeographical region.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by failing to establish, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, conservation priorities in relation to the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region within Spanish territory and identified by Commission Decision 2002/11/EC of 28 December 2001 adopting the list of sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43, and

– by failing to adopt and apply, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43, the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance of species, by ensuring the legal protection of the special areas of conservation covering the sites referred to in Decision 2002/11 situated in Spanish territory,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment – Urban waste-water treatment – Directive 91/271– Derogations – Less stringent treatment of less sensitive areas – Conditions – Carrying out of studies indicating that there will be no adverse effect on the environment – Communication to the Commission of all relevant information on that subject (Council Directive 91/271, Arts 2 and 6(1) and (2), second indent) (see paras 43-44)

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) (see para. 45)

3. Environment – Urban waste-water treatment – Directive 91/271 – More stringent treatment of discharges of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent – Lack – Partial collection and treatment – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3(2), 4 and 5(2)) (see paras 49-50, 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by identifying as less sensitive areas all the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira and of the Island of Porto Santo;

– by subjecting to treatment less stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, such as the agglomerations of Funchal and Câmara de Lobos, discharged into the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira;

– by failing to ensure, with regard to an agglomeration along the estuary of the River Tagus, namely, Quinta do Conde, the provision of collecting systems for urban waste water in accordance with Article 3 of the directive;

– by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomerations of Albufeira/Armação de Pêra, Beja, Chaves and Viseu and four agglomerations discharging on the left bank of the Tagus estuary, Barreiro/Moita, Corroios/Quinta da Bomba, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of the directive;

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 91/271;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Material scope of Directive 79/7 – Annual adjustment of retirement pensions – Included

(Council Directive 79/7, Arts 3(1) and 4(1))

2. Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – National scheme for annual adjustment of retirement pensions

(Council Directive 79/7, Art 4(1))

Summary

1. Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that an annual adjustment scheme for retirement pensions comes within the ambit of that directive and is therefore subject to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive.

Like the pension itself, its subsequent adjustment is designed to protect persons who have obtained the statutory retirement age against the risk of old age, by ensuring that they can have the necessary means in the light of, inter alia, their needs as retired persons.

(see paras 44, 53, operative part 1)

2. Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding a national arrangement which leads to the exclusion, from an exceptional pension increase, provided for by a scheme for the annual adjustment of retirement pensions, of a significantly higher percentage of female pensioners than male pensioners.

A disparity is large enough to constitute a significant indication in that regard when 75% of male pensioners are liable to benefit from the exceptional increase in pensions whereas that is the case for only 43% of female pensioners. It is for the referring court to draw that conclusion in the light of the data submitted to it.

If, in the course of that examination, the referring court should conclude that a significantly higher percentage of female pensioners than male pensioners may in fact have suffered a disadvantage because of the exclusion of minimum pensions from such an exceptional increase, that disadvantage cannot be justified by the fact that women who have worked become entitled to a pension at an earlier age or that they receive their pension over a longer period, or because the compensatory supplement standard rate was also subject to an exceptional increase in respect of the same year.

(see paras 60, 62-63, 68,104, operative part 2-3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Legislation of a Member State requiring, for the award of an ecological subsidy to an imported demonstration vehicle at the time of registration, the first registration document to bear the words ‘demonstration vehicle’ – Not permissible – Justification – No protection of the environment or combating of fraud

(Arts 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU)

Summary

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State from requiring, for the award of the subsidy known as the ‘bonus écologique – Grenelle de l’environnement’ to imported demonstration motor vehicles at the time of registration in that Member State, the first registration document of those vehicles to bear the words ‘demonstration vehicle’.

Even if such legislation requires the registration document for all demonstration motor vehicles, irrespective of their origin, to state that it was a ‘demonstration vehicle’ in order for those vehicles to be granted the ecological subsidy, that requirement would affect vehicles imported from other Member States differently according to whether or not they come from a Member State that provides for such a requirement in respect of registration documents. It may therefore influence the behaviour of consumers and, consequently, affect the access of those vehicles to the market of that Member State.

It is true that national measures capable of hindering intra-Community trade may be justified by the objective of protection of the environment and combating fraud provided that the measures in question are proportionate to the aim pursued. However, the requirement that the registration document for demonstration vehicles must state that it was a ‘demonstration vehicle’ is only one of many means available to the competent authorities to combat fraud and to protect the environment. Such a measure is therefore excessive and, consequently, disproportionate compared with the objectives pursued.

(see paras 29-30, 34, 37-38, 39, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of a general legal context ensuring the full application of the directive (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/98) (see paras 46, 60)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Directive intended to create rights for individuals – Requirements of clarity and legal certainty – Directive 2003/98 – Right to re-use public sector information – No transposition by statutory or regulatory provision – Not permissible (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/98, Art. 2, paras 1 to 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10) (see paras 50-52, 54-56)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Not permissible in the case of an express requirement for reference to be made to a directive (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/98) (see para. 58)

4. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Necessity of full transposition into national law – Activity referred to by a directive does not exist in a Member State – No effect (Art. 288, third para, TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/98) (see para. 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).

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 transpose into the Polish legal order Articles 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than private pleasure-flying – Extent

(Council Directive 2003/96, Art. 14(1)(b))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Exemption of fuels used in the field of the manufacture, development, testing and maintenance of aircraft – Extent

(Council Directive 2003/96, Art. 15(1)(j))

Summary

1. Article 14(1)(b) of Directive 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from tax of fuel used for the purpose of air navigation, under that provision, cannot apply in the case of a company that, in order to develop its business, uses an aircraft belonging to it to transport members of its staff to customers or to trade fairs, in so far as that travel is not directly used for the supply, by that company, of air services for consideration.

(see para. 33, operative part 1)

2. Article 15(1)(j) of Directive 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the fuel used for the purpose of flights to and from an aircraft maintenance facility does not fall within the ambit of that provision.

(see para. 39, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Right to paid annual leave

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

Summary

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions or practices, such as collective agreements, which limit, by a carry-over period of 15 months on the expiry of which the right to paid annual leave lapses, the accumulation of entitlement to such leave of a worker who is unfit for work for several consecutive reference periods.

(see para. 44, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels in transport – Directive 2003/30 – Bioethanol – Definition

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/30, Art. 2(2)(a))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/83 – Alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Ethyl alcohol – Definition

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/30, Art. 2(2)(a); Council Directive 92/83, Art. 19(1))

Summary

1. The definition of bioethanol in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/30 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport must be interpreted as including a product which is obtained from, inter alia, biomass and which contains more than 98.5% ethyl alcohol, once it is offered for sale as biofuel for transport.

(see para. 47, operative part 1)

2. European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that a product which contains more than 98.5% ethyl alcohol and has not been denatured in a special denaturing procedure must be subject to the excise duty provided for in Article 19(1) of Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, even when it was obtained from biomass using a technology which differs from the technology for the production of agricultural ethyl alcohol, contains substances making it unsuitable for human consumption, satisfies the requirements laid down in European standard prEN 15376 for bioethanol used as fuel and potentially meets the definition of bioethanol in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/30 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.

(see para. 66, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation No 1346/2000 – International jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings – Courts of the Member State in which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated

(Council Regulation No 1346/2000)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation No 1346/2000 – International jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings – Courts of the Member State in which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated – Criteria for determining

(Council Regulation No 1346/2000)

Summary

1. On a proper construction of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, a court of a Member State that has opened main insolvency proceedings against a company, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, may, under a rule of its national law, join to those proceedings a second company whose registered office is in another Member State only if it is established that the centre of that second company’s main interests is situated in the first Member State.

In the system established by the Regulation for determining the competence of the Member States, which is based on the centre of the debtor’s main interests, each debtor constituting a distinct legal entity is subject to its own court jurisdiction.

For it to be possible for a court, designated under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 as having jurisdiction with regard to a debtor, to join another legal entity to insolvency proceedings on the sole ground that their property has been intermixed, without considering where the centre of that entity’s main interests is situated, would constitute a circumvention of the system established by the Regulation. This would result in, inter alia, a risk of conflicting claims to jurisdiction between courts of different Member States, which the Regulation specifically intended to prevent in order to ensure uniform treatment of insolvency proceedings within the European Union.

(see paras 25, 28-29, operative part 1)

2. On a proper construction of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, when a company, whose registered office is situated within the territory of a Member State, is subject to an action that seeks to extend to it the effects of insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State against another company established within the territory of that other Member State, the mere finding that the property of those companies has been intermixed is not sufficient to establish that the centre of the main interests of the company concerned by the action is also situated in that other Member State. In order to reverse the presumption that this centre is the place of the registered office, it is necessary for an overall assessment of all the relevant factors to enable it to be established, in a manner ascertainable by third parties, that the actual centre of management and supervision of the company concerned by the joinder action is situated in the Member State where the initial insolvency proceedings were opened.

(see para. 39, operative part 2)
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

—

Application initiating proceedings

—

Formal requirements

—

Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute

—

Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

—

Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see paras 15-22

)