ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of the merits by the Court - Situation to be taken into consideration - Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Freedom to provide services - Restrictions justified in the general interest - Whether permissible - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC) and Art. 60 (now Art. 50 EC))

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Proof of failure - Burden of proof on Commission - Production of evidence showing failure

(Art. 226 EC)

4. Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - National provision restricting access of nationals of other Member States to the pursuit of activities as transport consultants - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 52 and 59 (now, after amendment, Arts 43 EC and 49 EC))

Summary

1. In connection with an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.

( see para. 12 )

2. The freedom to provide services, being one of the fundamental principles of the Treaty, may be restricted only by rules justified by the public interest and applicable to all persons and undertakings operating in the territory of the Member State where the service is provided, in so far as that interest is not safeguarded by the rules to which the provider of such a service is subject in the Member State where he is established.

( see para. 23 )

3. In proceedings under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil an obligation, it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled and to place before the Court the information needed to enable it to determine whether the obligation has not been fulfilled.

( see para. 27 )

4. By subjecting the pursuit of the activity of transport consultant to possession of an administrative authorisation, failing which liability to penalties is incurred, and by making its issue subject to the condition that nationals of other Member States reside within the country and lodge a security, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC).

( see para. 29 and operative part )
Keywords



Keywords

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

(Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Grounds - Challenge to grounds of a judgment which have no effect on the operative part of the judgment - Inoperative plea

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49(1))

2. Appeals - Grounds - Plea challenging the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs - Inadmissible where all other pleas rejected

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51(2))

Summary

1. In an appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance, a plea directed against certain grounds of the judgment which have no effect on its operative part is inoperative and must be rejected.

Thus, where the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance explain that an action for failure to act has ceased to have any purpose because the institution has expressed its position after proceedings were commenced and where the grounds, by themselves, provide a sufficient legal basis for the Court's decision that there is no need to give judgment, a plea in an appeal directed against grounds which deal with the admissibility of the action for failure to act is inoperative and must be dismissed. Such grounds have no effect on the operative part of the judgment under appeal, it being clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that, where the Court decides that there is no need to give judgment in an action which has ceased to have any purpose, it is not necessary for it to examine the admissibility of that action.

( see paras 26-29 )

2. Where all the other pleas put forward in an appeal have been rejected, any plea challenging the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs must be rejected as inadmissible by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which provides that no appeal shall lie regarding only the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them.

( see para. 31 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Grounds - Plea alleging incorrect appraisal of the facts - Inadmissible - Whether the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of the evidence - Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

$$Under Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal lies on a point of law only. Therefore, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, except in a case where the factual inaccuracy of its findings is demonstrated by the evidence adduced before it. The appraisal of the facts does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings.

( see para. 17 )
Keywords



Keywords

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

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))

2. Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification based on the delay by the Commission in establishing a format intended for the submission of certain data by Member States - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 90/435 - Exemption, in the Member State of the subsidiary, from withholding tax on profits distributed to the parent company - Withholding tax - Concept - Present case

(Council Directive 90/435, Art. 5(1))

Summary

$$There is a withholding tax, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - which provides that profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company holding a minimum of 25% of the capital of the subsidiary are to be exempt from withholding tax - where national legislation provides that, in the event of distribution of profits by a subsidiary (a public limited company or equivalent company) to its parent company, in order to determine the taxable income of the subsidiary its total net profits, including income which has been subject to special taxation entailing extinction of tax liability and non-taxable income, must be reincorporated into the basic taxable amount, when income falling within those two categories would not be taxable on the basis of the national legislation if they remained with the subsidiary and were not distributed to the parent company.

That is so because the chargeable event for taxation of that kind is the payment of dividends and the amount of tax is directly related to the size of the distribution.

( see paras 28 and 33 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Council - Right of public access to Council documents - Decision 93/731 - Aims - Principle of the widest possible access - Strict interpretation of exceptions to the principle of access

(Council Decision 93/731, Art. 4(1))

2. Council - Right of public access to Council documents - Decision 93/731 - Exceptions to the principle of access to documents - Refusal of access to a document without first examining the possibility of partial access to data not covered by the exceptions - Breach of the principle of proportionality

(Council Decision 93/731)

Summary

1. The aim pursued by Decision 93/731 on public access to Council documents, as well as being to ensure the internal operation of the Council in conformity with the interests of good administration, is to provide the public with the widest possible access to documents held by the Council, so that any exception to that right of access must be interpreted and applied strictly.

( see para. 25 )

2. The principle of proportionality requires that derogations remain within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary for achieving the aim in view.

In the absence of any reason to show why an institution should be able to keep secret the items of information in a document which are not covered by the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1) of Decision 93/731, a refusal to grant partial access would be manifestly disproportionate for ensuring the confidentiality of the items of information covered by one of those exceptions. The aim pursued by the Council in refusing access to the contested report could be achieved even if the Council did no more than remove, after examination, the passages in the report which might harm international relations.

( see paras 28-29 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13 - Consumer, as defined in Article 2 - Meaning - Legal persons - Excluded

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 2(b))

Summary

$$The term consumer, as defined in Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as referring solely to natural persons.

( see para. 17 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Conversion of a partnership into a capital company - Levy of capital duty in addition to duty levied on the capital contributions to the partnership - Whether permissible

(Council Directive 69/335)

Summary

$$The provisions of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as not precluding the levy of capital duty upon the conversion of a partnership into a capital company within the meaning of that directive, where, before the entry into force of that directive, a duty has already been levied on all the capital contributions made for the acquisition of shares in the partnership, whether or not that duty has the same characteristics as a capital duty within the meaning of Article 10 of the directive. The prohibition in Article 10 of Directive 69/335 on the charging of any tax with the same characteristics as capital duty cannot apply to a duty or charge which, whatever its characteristics, is levied on contributions to companies or firms which are not capital companies within the meaning of the directive.

( see paras 28, 32, operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Rules on the transfer of reference quantities upon expiry of a rural lease of a holding - Transfer to lessor of the reference quantity attached to that holding in the event of the surrender of leased lands - Conditions - Producer status of lessor - Producer - Definition

(Council Regulation No 3950/92, Arts 7(2) and 9(c))

Summary

$$On a proper construction of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, upon expiry of a rural lease of a dairy holding, the transfer in whole or part to the lessor of the reference quantity attached to that holding is possible only where the lessor has the status of a producer within the meaning of Article 9(c) of that regulation or, at the date of expiry of the lease, transfers the reference quantity available to a third party who has that status. For the purposes of the attribution of the relevant reference quantities to lessors under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 3950/92, it is sufficient that, on the abovementioned date, the lessor can show that he is preparing in a definite manner to take up as soon as possible the activity of a producer within the meaning of Article 9(c) of that regulation.

( see para. 46, operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. ECSC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibited — Scope — Association of undertakings — (ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1))

2. ECSC — Agreements — Concerted practice — Meaning — Criteria of coordination and cooperation — Interpretation — Agreement on the exchange of information — (ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1); Art. 81(1) EC)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — Appeal dismissed — (Art. 32d(1) CS; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice; Art. 51)

Summary

1. Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty expressly prohibits decisions by associations of undertakings which tend, directly or indirectly, to prevent, restrict or distort normal competition within the common market. Article 65(1) therefore applies to associations to the extent that their own activity or that of their member undertakings tends to produce the effects to which it refers.

see paras 22-23

2. An agreement on the exchange of information is incompatible with the rules on competition if it reduces or removes the degree of uncertainty as to the operation of the market in question with the result that competition between undertakings is restricted.

The criteria of coordination and cooperation necessary for determining the existence of a concerted practice, far from requiring an actual `plan' to have been worked out, are to be understood in the light of the concept inherent in the provisions of the EC and ECSC Treaties on competition, according to which each trader must determine independently the policy which he intends to adopt on the common market and the conditions which he intends to offer to his customers.

While it is true that this requirement of independence does not deprive traders of the right to adapt themselves intelligently to the existing or anticipated conduct of their competitors, it does, however, strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between such traders, the object or effect of which is to create conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal conditions of the market in question, regard being had to the nature of the products or services offered, the size and number of the undertakings and the volume of the said market.

see paras 41-43, 60

3. It is clear from Article 32d(1) CS and Article 51 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal lies on a point of law only. Therefore, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence, except where those facts and that evidence have been distorted.

see para. 46
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

16 January 2003

((Sixth VAT Directive – Reduction coupons issued by a manufacturer – Taxable amount in the hands of the retailer))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Yorkshire Co-operatives Ltd, represented by J. Ghosh, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by R. Magrill, assisted by K. Parker QC, of the Irish Government, represented by D. Moloney, and the Commission, represented by R. Lyal, at the hearing on 21 June 2001,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 September 2001,
Case C-176/99 P





ARBED SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams – Notification of the statement of objections)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 26 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 2 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Keywords



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations Examination by the Court of the merits Situation to be taken into consideration Situation at the expiry of the period set by the reasoned opinion

(Article 226 EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations Proof of failure to fulfil obligations Burden of proof on Commission

(Article 226 EC)
Keywords



Keywords

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

(Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

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

( see para. 8 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Requirement that subject-matter and grounds be the same - Pleas in law and arguments not appearing in the complaint, but closely linked to it - Admissibility - Failure to allege, even implicitly, in the pre-litigation procedure an infringement of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24, paras. 3 and 4, Arts. 90 and 91)

2. Appeals - Grounds - Inadequate or contradictory grounds - Admissibility

3. Officials - Promotion - Consideration of the comparative merits - Automatic promotion of officials appearing on the list of the most deserving officials in the preceding year - Unlawfulness

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45, para. 1)

Summary

1. In staff cases, the claims before the Community court may be based only on grounds of challenge having the same legal basis as those raised in the complaint. The former may be developed before the Court by the submission of pleas and arguments which do not necessarily appear in the complaint, but must be closely linked to it.

Where the complaint does not expressly refer either to the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations or to the concept of further training and instruction which is the subject of those provisions, but only to mobility and the career development of officials, such a complaint cannot be regarded, even on a very liberal construction, as containing the information from which the appointing authority could have inferred that it included an allegation of infringement of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

( see paras 12-13, 16 )

2. The question whether the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance are contradictory is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to judicial review on appeal.

( see para. 20 )

3. The Staff Regulations do not confer any right to promotion, even on officials who fulfil all of the conditions for promotion. A practice of automatically promoting, save where they have become less deserving, officials who, in the preceding promotions exercise, appeared on the list of the most deserving officials but who had not been promoted, would clearly infringe Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations. Promotion decisions presuppose that the appointing authority has considered the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and the reports on them, in the context of each promotions procedure.

( see paras 35-36 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy - Approximation of laws - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Directive 77/187 - Scope - Situation where an undertaking terminates a cleaning contract with another undertaking which had the contract performed by a subcontractor - Contract awarded to another undertaking - Re-engagement by that other undertaking of part of the staff of the subcontractor - Covered - Conditions

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 1(1))

2. Social policy - Approximation of laws - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 77/187 - Employee opposed to the transfer of his contract to the transferee - Whether permissible

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3(1))

Summary

1. Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 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 applying to a situation in which a contractor which has entrusted the contract for cleaning its premises to a first undertaking, which has that contract performed by a subcontractor, terminates that contract and enters into a new contract for the performance of the same work with a second undertaking, where the transaction does not involve any transfer of tangible or intangible assets between the first undertaking or the subcontractor and the second undertaking, but the second undertaking has taken on, under a collective labour agreement, part of the staff of the subcontractor, provided that the staff thus taken on are an essential part, in terms of their number and their skills, of the staff assigned by the subcontractor to the performance of the subcontract.

( see para. 33 and operative part 1 )

2. Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 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 it does not preclude the contract or employment relationship of a worker employed by the transferor on the date of the transfer of the undertaking within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive from continuing with the transferor where that worker objects to the transfer of his employment contract or employment relationship to the transferee.

( see para. 37 and operative part 2 )