ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Customs union – System of temporary importation with relief from duties – Road vehicles for commercial use – Vehicle used for internal traffic – Unloading of goods in a Member State without authorisation to do so

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 555(1) and 558(1)(c), as amended by Regulation No 993/2001)

Summary

On a proper construction of Article 555(1) and Article 558(1)(c) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 993/2001, the irregularity in respect of the use of a vehicle imported into the European Union under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties and used for internal traffic must be regarded as occurring at the moment of crossing the border of the Member State in which the vehicle is used in breach of the national provisions in the field of transport, that is to say, without authorisation to unload given by the Member State of unloading, the authorities of that Member State being responsible for levying those duties.

(see para. 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Legal expenses insurance – Directive 87/344 – Right of the insured person to choose his legal representative freely – Extent

(Council Directive 87/344, Art. 4(1))

Summary

Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which it may be agreed that a person covered by legal expenses insurance may select, in order to have his interests represented in administrative or judicial proceedings, only persons professionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers at the place of the court or administrative authority having jurisdiction at first instance, on condition that, in order not to render meaningless the insured person’s freedom to choose the person instructed to represent him, that restriction relates only to the extent of the cover by the legal insurance provider in respect of costs linked to the involvement of a representative and that the reimbursement actually provided by that insurer is sufficient, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(see para. 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions – Exemption for games of chance – Meaning

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 6(4), and 13B(f))

Summary

Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as an economic operator acts in his own name, but on behalf of an undertaking carrying on a bet-taking business, in the collection of bets covered by the exemption from VAT under Article 13(B)(f), that latter undertaking is to be considered, in accordance with Article 6(4), to provide that operator with a supply of bets coming under that exemption.

(see para. 44, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Annulment – Meaning

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 2(l) and 5(3))

2. Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Further compensation – Scope – Cover of non-material damage – Included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 8, 9 and 12, Montreal Convention of 1999)

Summary

1. ‘Cancellation’, as defined in Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not refer only to the situation in which the aeroplane in question fails to take off at all, but also covers the case in which that aeroplane took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to return to the airport of departure where the passengers of that aeroplane were transferred to other flights.

The reason why the aeroplane was forced to return to the airport of departure is, in this connection, irrelevant. It is of relevance only in order to determine whether, depending on the circumstances, that cancellation is ‘caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, in which case no compensation is payable.

(see paras 34-35, operative part 1)

2. The term ‘further compensation’, used in Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as allowing the national court to award compensation, under the conditions provided for by the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air or national law, for damage, including non-material damage, arising from breach of a contract of carriage by air. In contrast, the notion of ‘further compensation’ may not serve as the legal basis for the national court to order an air carrier to reimburse to passengers whose flight has been delayed or cancelled the expenses the latter have had to incur because of the failure of that carrier to fulfil its obligations to assist and provide care under Article 8 and Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004.

(see para. 46, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552 – Monitoring of compliance with the provisions of the directive – Monitoring to be carried out by the Member State from which the broadcast emanates – Exceptions – Incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality – Concept – Infringement of the principle of international understanding – Included

(Council Directive 89/552, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/36, Art. 22a)

Summary

Article 22a of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36, must be interpreted as meaning that facts covered by a rule of national law prohibiting infringement of the principles of international understanding, must be regarded as being included in the concept of ‘incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality’.

That article does not preclude a Member State from adopting measures against a broadcaster established in another Member State, pursuant to a general law such as a law on associations, on the ground that the activities and objectives of that broadcaster run counter to the prohibition of the infringement of the principles of international understanding, provided that those measures do not prevent retransmission per se on the territory of the receiving Member State of television broadcasts made by that broadcaster from another Member State, this being a matter to be determined by the national court.

(see paras 46, 54, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Acknowledgement of its failure by the Member State concerned – No effect (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 28)

2. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directives 92/50 and 2004/18 – Derogations from common rules – Restrictive interpretation – Existence of exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 31(4)(a); Council Directive 92/50, Art. 11(3)(e)) (see paras 32-33)

3. 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. 40)

4. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 41)

Subject of the case

Re

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 8 and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and of Articles 20 and 31(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) – Award of a contract without prior publication of a contract notice – Contract relating to additional land-registry and town-planning services – Municipalities of Vasilika, Kassandra, Egnatia and Arethousa.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by awarding, by means of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, public contracts for additional land registry and town planning services which do not appear in the initial contract concluded by the municipalities of Vasilika, Kassandra, Egnatia and Arethousa, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1997, and Articles 20 and 31(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;

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

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Family allowances – Pensioners entitled under the legislation of several Member States – Benefits for dependent children of pensioners and for orphans – Handicapped children

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, Arts 77(2)(b)(i) and 78(2)(b)(i))

Summary

Articles 77(2)(b)(i) and 78(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that recipients of old age and/or invalidity pensions, or the orphan of a deceased worker, to whom the legislation of several Member States applied, but whose pension or orphan’s rights are based on the legislation of the former Member State of employment alone, are entitled to claim from the competent authorities of that State the full amount of the family allowances provided under that legislation for handicapped children, even though they have not, in the Member State of residence, applied for comparable, higher, allowances under the legislation of that latter State, because they opted to be granted another benefit for handicapped persons which is incompatible with those, since the right to family allowances in the former Member State of employment was acquired by reason of the legislation of that State alone. This also applies when, under the legislation of the Member State of residence, the interested persons are unable to opt for payment of family allowances in that State.

(see paras 57, 59, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Directive 96/61 – Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs with more than 750 places for sows – Meaning of places for sows

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 166/2006; Council Directive 96/61, Art. 1 and Annex I, subheading 6.6(c))

Summary

The expression ‘places for sows’, in subheading 6.6(c) of Annex I to Directive 96/61 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation No 166/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it includes places for gilts, that is to say female pigs which have already been serviced, but have not yet farrowed.

(see para. 39, operative part)
Although Member States are indeed free to lay down, in their domestic legislation, conditions for the exercise and implementation of the right to paid annual leave, they are not entitled to make the very existence of that right subject to any preconditions whatsoever. Thus, the requisite arrangements for implementation and application of the requirements of Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, codified by Directive 2003/88, may display certain divergences as regards the conditions for exercising the right to paid annual leave, but that directive does not allow Member States to exclude the very existence of a right expressly granted to all workers.

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of ten days’ or one month’s actual work during the reference period.

In proceedings between individuals where domestic law is contrary to Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, it is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular the relevant labour law, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, in order to ensure that that provision is fully effective and achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the worker’s absence due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by the relevant provision of national labour law.

If such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings, the direct effect of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against them.

If the national court is unable to attain the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law’s being inconsistent with Union law could none the less rely on the judgment of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the damage sustained.

(see para. 44, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Persons liable to pay the tax – The right of Member States to hold jointly and severally liable for the tax a person other than the person liable to pay the tax (Article 21(3) of the Sixth Directive)

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 21(3))

Summary

Article 21(3) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 2001/115, must be interpreted as not authorising the Member States to provide that a warehouse-keeper other than a customs warehouse-keeper is jointly and severally liable for the value added tax which is owing on a supply of goods made for valuable consideration, and released from the warehouse, by the owner of the goods who is liable for the tax on those goods, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him.

National measures which bring about, de facto, a system of strict joint and several liability go beyond what is necessary to preserve the public exchequer’s rights. Imposing responsibility for paying value added tax on a person other than the person liable to pay that tax, even where that person is an authorised tax warehouse-keeper, without allowing him to escape liability by providing proof that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the acts of the person liable to pay the tax must, therefore, be considered contrary to the principle of proportionality. It would clearly be disproportionate to hold that person unconditionally liable for the shortfall in tax caused by acts of a third party over which he has no influence whatsoever.

The fact that the person other than the person liable to pay the tax acted in good faith, exhibiting all the due diligence of a circumspect trader, that he took every reasonable measure in his power and that his participation in fraud is excluded are important points in deciding whether that person can be obliged to account for the value added tax owed.

(see paras 24, 26, 28, operative part)
Case C-436/10

État belge

v

BLM SA

(Reference for a preliminary ruling

from the cour d’appel de Mons)

‛Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a), and Article 13(B)(b) — Right of deduction — Business assets which belong to a taxable person which is a legal person and which are placed at the disposal of its staff for their private use’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Leasing or letting of immovable property

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 6(2), para.1, (a), and 13B(b))

Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which — despite the fact that the characteristics of the leasing or the letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) are not present — treats as a supply of services exempt from VAT under that provision the private use, by the staff of a taxable person that is a legal person, of part of a building constructed or owned by virtue of a right in rem in immovable property, held by that taxable person, when the input tax on that business asset is deductible.

It is for the referring court to determine whether, in a given situation, a finding can be made that there is a letting of immoveable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Directive.

(see paras 31, 32, operative part)

Case C-436/10

État belge

v

BLM SA

(Reference for a preliminary ruling

from the cour d’appel de Mons)

‛Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a), and Article 13(B)(b) — Right of deduction — Business assets which belong to a taxable person which is a legal person and which are placed at the disposal of its staff for their private use’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Leasing or letting of immovable property

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 6(2), para.1, (a), and 13B(b))

Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which — despite the fact that the characteristics of the leasing or the letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) are not present — treats as a supply of services exempt from VAT under that provision the private use, by the staff of a taxable person that is a legal person, of part of a building constructed or owned by virtue of a right in rem in immovable property, held by that taxable person, when the input tax on that business asset is deductible.

It is for the referring court to determine whether, in a given situation, a finding can be made that there is a letting of immoveable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Directive.

(see paras 31, 32, operative part)
Case C-337/10

Georg Neidel

v

Stadt Frankfurt am Main

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main)

‛Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Working conditions — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — Allowance in lieu in the event of sickness — Public servants (firemen)’

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation restricting the accumulation of entitlements to paid leave not taken because a public servant who was retiring was unfit for service — Whether incompatible

Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation conferring on public servants an entitlement to further paid leave, in addition to the entitlement to a minimum paid annual leave

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as applying to a public servant carrying out the activities of a fireman in normal circumstances. (see para. 26, operative part 1)

Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that a public servant is entitled, on retirement, to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was prevented from working by sickness. (see para. 32, operative part 2)

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law conferring on a public servant an entitlement to further paid leave in addition to the entitlement to a minimum paid annual leave of four weeks, which do not provide for the payment of an allowance in lieu if a public servant who is retiring has been unable to use that additional entitlement because he was prevented from working by sickness. (see para. 37, operative part 3)
Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Plant variety rights — Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 — Determination of reasonable compensation payable by a farmer who has used the propagating material of a protected variety and has not fulfilled his obligations — Basis of calculation

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 14(3) and 94(1); Commission Regulations No 1768/95, Art. 8, and No 2605/98)