ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – Exercise of that right not dependent on a specific interest in bringing an action (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 26-27)

2. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 89/665) (see paras 30-42)

3. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Derogations from common rules (Council Directive 93/36, Art. 6(2) and (3)) (see paras 54-56)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 6, in conjunction with Article 9, of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) – Contract for the supply of a software application designed for motor vehicle registration concluded without contracting procedures between two bodies governed by public law responsible for data-processing on behalf of local authorities.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by reason of the fact that the Datenzentrale Baden-Württemberg (Central Data Office of Baden-Württemberg) awarded a contract for the supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration by a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Economic activities within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(1) and (2))

Summary

Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is to be interpreted as meaning that external advertising activities carried out by a section of a Member State’s political party is not to be regarded as an economic activity. Such activities do not allow the generation of revenue on a continuing basis, as the only income obtained on a continuing basis comes from public funding and the party members’ contributions, that income having been raised in particular to cover losses made by the external advertising activity. By such advertising activities, a political party carries out a communication exercise in keeping with attainment of its political objectives, which seeks to spread its ideas as a political organisation. In carrying out such activities, a political party does not however participate in any market.

(see paras 21, 23-24, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Application initiating proceedings – Statement of subject-matter and pleas in law – Formal requirements – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Art. 226 EC, Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see paras 60, 63, 67)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Economic activities carried on independently for the purpose of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive (Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2 and 4(1) and (2)) (see paras 90, 93, 97, 103, 107, 109, 118, 127 and operative part)

3. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Liability (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 125-126)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2 and 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Taxable persons – Activities or operations carried out by ‘registradores de la propiedad’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by considering that the services supplied to an Autonomous Community by ‘registradores de la propiedad’ acting as settlement agents in charge of a settlement office of a mortgage district (‘oficina liquidadora de distrito hipotecario’) are not subject to value added tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Measures for the establishment and proper functioning of the internal market in electricity – Directive 2003/54 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54, Art. 23(5)) (see para. 23)

2. Approximation of laws – Measures for the establishment and proper functioning of the internal market in electricity – Directive 2003/54 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54, Art. 23(2)(a)) (see para. 31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) – Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that

– by failing to provide that cases of refusal of access to the electricity distribution or transmission systems may be submitted to the regulatory authority which must then issue a binding decision within a period of two months, in accordance with the provisions of Article 23(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, and

– by attributing to an authority other than the regulatory authority the power to define criteria which are decisive for the calculation of tariffs as regards certain electricity transmission installations, contrary to the provisions of Article 23(2)(a) of Directive 2003/54,

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

Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374 – Action brought against a company wrongly considered to be the producer – Expiry of the limitation period – Substitution of the original defendant by the producer – Not permissible – Exception – Action brought against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the producer and the putting into circulation of the product at issue determined by that producer – Possibility of classifying the supplier, the original defendant, as producer – Conditions – Determination by the national court

(Council Directive 85/374, Arts 3(1) and (3), and 11)

Summary

Article 11 of Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings from being applied in a way which permits a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3 of that directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.

However, first, Article 11 must be interpreted as not precluding a national court from holding that, in the proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, that producer can be substituted for that subsidiary if that court finds that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, determined by that producer.

Second, Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person injured by an allegedly defective product was not reasonably able to identify the producer of that product before exercising his rights against the supplier of that product, that supplier must be treated as a ‘producer’ for the purposes, in particular, of the application of Article 11 of that directive, if it did not inform the injured person, on its own initiative and promptly, of the identity of the producer or its own supplier, which it is for the national court to determine in the light of the circumstances of the case.

(see paras 62-64, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Family allowances – Minor child residing with one parent in a Member State other than the Member State providing the benefit – Other parent working in the Member State providing the benefit – Maintaining entitlement to family allowances payable by the Member State providing the benefit – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 73)

2. Social security for migrant workers – Family allowances – Community rules for prevention of overlapping benefits – Worker entitled to allowances in his State of employment and his State of residence – Suspension of the right to benefits in the Member State of residence and employment of the ex-husband up to the sum of the amount provided for by the former State

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 76)

Summary

1. Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that a divorced person who was paid family allowances by the competent institution of the Member State in which she was living and where her ex-husband continues to live and work maintains in respect of her child, provided that child is recognised as a ‘member of the family’ of the ex-husband within the meaning of Article 1(f)(i) of that regulation, entitlement to such allowances even though she leaves that State and settles with her child in another Member State, where she does not work, and even though her ex-husband could receive those allowances in his Member State of residence.

(see para. 32, operative part 1)

2. The fact that a person is in employment in her Member State of residence, giving entitlement to family allowances, has, under Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, the effect of suspending entitlement to family allowances payable under the legislation of the Member State in whose territory her ex-husband is in employment, up to the sum provided for by the legislation of her Member State of residence.

(see para. 38, 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 77/388, Art. 18(4))

Summary

Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which lays down a limitation period of three years in which to make an application for the refund of excess value added tax collected by, though not due to, the tax authority of that State.

Such a time-limit cannot, in itself, render the exercise of the right to deduct virtually impossible or excessively difficult, since a limitation period of three years is, in principle, such as to permit any normally attentive taxable person validly to assert his rights derived from European Union law.

(see paras 20-22, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Art. 45 TFEU)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers

(Art. 45 TFEU)

Summary

1. Article 45 TFEU extends not only to the actions of public authorities but also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating gainful employment in a collective manner. A professional football charter of the national football federation falls within the scope of that article if the charter has the status of a national collective agreement.

(see paras 30, 32)

2. Article 45 TFEU does not preclude a scheme which, in order to attain the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, guarantees compensation to the club which provided the training if, at the end of his training period, a young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, provided that the scheme is suitable to ensure the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.

It is true that such a scheme is a restriction of freedom of movement for workers guaranteed within the European Union by Article 45 TFEU, since it is likely to discourage players from exercising their right of free movement and makes the exercise of that right less attractive, even though it does not formally prevent the player from signing a professional contract with a club in another Member State. However, such a scheme can, in principle, be justified by the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, the prospect of receiving training fees being likely to encourage football clubs to seek new talent and train young players. Moreover, the costs generated by training young players are, in general, only partly compensated for by the benefits which the club providing the training can derive from those players during their training period. In those circumstances, the clubs that provided the training could be discouraged from investing in the training of young players if they could not obtain reimbursement of the amounts spent for that purpose when, at the end of his training, a player enters into a professional contract with another club. In particular, that would be the case with small clubs providing training, whose investments at local level in the recruitment and training of young players are of considerable importance for the social and educational function of sport.

However, such a scheme must be actually capable of attaining that objective and be proportionate to it, taking due account of the costs borne by the clubs in training both future professional players and those who will never play professionally. A scheme under which a ‘joueur espoir’ who signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State at the end of his training period is liable to pay damages calculated in a way that is unrelated to the actual costs of the training is not necessary to ensure the attainment of that objective.

(see paras 35-37, 41, 43-45, 49-50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/84 – Those entitled to receive royalties after the death of an author of an original work of art

(Art. 95 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/84, Art. 6(1))

Summary

Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which reserves the benefit of the resale right to the artist’s heirs at law alone, to the exclusion of testamentary legatees. That being so, it is for the referring court, for the purposes of applying the national provision transposing Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84, to take due account of all the relevant rules for the resolution of conflicts of laws relating to the transfer on succession of the resale right.

The adoption of Directive 2001/84 is based on two objectives, namely first, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their original works of art and, second, to put an end to the distortions of competition on the market in art, as the payment of a royalty in certain Member States might lead to displacement of sales of works of art into those Member States where the resale right is not applied. While the Union legislature wished those entitled under the author to benefit fully from the resale right after his death, it did not, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, consider it appropriate to take action through that directive in relation to Member States’ laws of succession, thus leaving to each Member State the task of defining the categories of persons capable of being considered, under national law, as those entitled. Accordingly, it is permissible for Member States to make their own legislative choice in determining the categories of persons capable of benefiting from the resale right after the death of the author of a work of art.

(see paras 27, 32-33, 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation on the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in another Member State – Unscheduled hospital treatment – Regulation No 1408/71

(Art.49 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 22(1)(a)(i))

Summary

A Member State that refuses persons insured under the national health scheme of that State the supplementary reimbursement of medical expenses they have incurred in another Member State for hospital treatment received in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, and as subsequently amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, in so far as the level of cover applicable in the Member State where the treatment is administered is lower than that provided for under the legislation of the Member State of affiliation, does not fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

The possibility that persons insured under the national health system of a Member State might be induced to return to that Member State early in order to receive hospital treatment there which has been made necessary by a deterioration in their health during a temporary stay in another Member State, or to cancel a trip to another Member State – for tourism or study, for example – because, outside particular limited situations, they cannot count on the competent institution’s making a complementary contribution if the cost of equivalent treatment in the Member State of affiliation exceeds the level of cover applicable in that other Member State, appears too uncertain and indirect. Accordingly, the contested legislation cannot, for it is couched in general terms, be regarded as being such as to restrict the freedom to supply hospital treatment, tourism or educational services.

Furthermore, cases in which unscheduled hospital treatment provided to an insured person during a temporary stay in another Member State bring about, as a consequence of the application of the legislation of the Member State of stay, a heavier financial burden for the Member State of affiliation than if that treatment had been provided in one of its own establishments, are deemed to be counterbalanced overall by cases in which, on the contrary, application of the legislation of the Member State of stay leads the Member State of affiliation to incur lower costs for the hospital treatment in question than those which would have resulted from the application of its own legislation.

(see paras 72, 78, 80)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Directive 98/44

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44, Art. 9)

2. Approximation of laws – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Directive 98/44

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44, Art. 9)

3. Approximation of laws – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Directive 98/44

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44, Art. 9)

4. International agreements – Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs)

(TRIPS Agreement, Arts 27 and 30; European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44, Art. 9)

Summary

1. Article 9 of Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions is to be interpreted as not conferring patent right protection in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the patented product is contained in the soy meal, where it does not perform the function for which it is patented, but did perform that function previously in the soy plant, of which the meal is a processed product, or would possibly again be able to perform that function after it had been extracted from the soy meal and inserted into the cell of a living organism. That interpretation is supported by the wording of Article 9 of the Directive, which makes the protection it provides for subject to the condition that the patented DNA sequence perform its function in the material in which it is incorporated.

(see paras 46, 50, operative part 1)

2. The answer to the second question is therefore that Article 9 of Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions effects an exhaustive harmonisation of the protection it confers, with the result that it precludes the national patent legislation from offering absolute protection to the patented product as such, regardless of whether it performs its function in the material containing it.

(see para. 63, operative part 2)

3. The answer to the third question is therefore that Article 9 of Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions precludes the holder of a patent issued before that directive was adopted from relying on the absolute protection for the patented product accorded to it under the national legislation then applicable. In order to answer that question, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, new rules apply, as a matter of principle, immediately to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule. The Directive does not provide for any derogation from that principle.

(see paras 66-67, 69, operative part 3)

4. Articles 27 and 30 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and approved by Decision 94/800 do not affect the interpretation given of Article 9 of Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, under which the protection it confers is limited to situations in which the patented product performs its function.

(see paras 76-77, operative part 4)