ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Management and supervision – Transitional provisions – Time-limit for applying for final payment of the sums granted – Application for final payment – Definition – Attestation by the Member State confirming the information supplied in the application for payment and the reports – Not included – Automatic decommitment of a sum where attestation not produced within the time-limit for application for final payment – Not permissible

(Council Regulations Nos 4253/88, Art. 21(4), third indent, and 1260/1999, Art. 52(1) and (5))

Summary

In automatically decommitting a sum for expenses incurred in the context of a Community aid programme on the ground that a Member State has not submitted to it, before the time-limit for applying for final payment laid down in Article 52(5) of Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, certification of the information supplied within the meaning of Article 21(4) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, the Commission misapplies the said Article 52(5), and a decision by the Commission to decommit that sum must therefore be annulled.

Even though applications for final payment within the meaning of the said Article 52(5), submitted by Member States to the Commission, must at least contain the information which the Commission needs in order to proceed with the final conclusion of those projects and payment of the sums claimed, that provision does not contain any indication that the set of formalities prescribed in Article 21(4) of Regulation No 4253/88 and in the decision to grant the aid, on which formalities payment of the balance of each commitment is made conditional, must necessarily be fulfilled in order to avoid decommitment of the sums committed by virtue of that first provision. Moreover, the words ‘application for final payment’, appearing in Article 52(5) of Regulation No 1260/1999, correspond more closely to the words ‘request for payment’, which appear respectively in the first and third indents of Article 21(4) of Regulation No 4253/88. It is clear from the wording of that latter provision that the attestation or the certificate from the Member State confirming the information supplied in the application for payment and the reports, and which is at issue in the third indent of the latter, does not form part of the application for payment proper. Therefore, Article 52(5) of Regulation No 1260/1999 cannot be regarded as requiring a Member State to fulfil, before a certain date and on pain of incurring automatic decommitment, a formality, such as that of submitting a certification of the information supplied, if such an obligation is not clearly laid down by that provision.

(see paras 30, 43-46)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions

(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Recognition of diplomas and qualifications – Directive 92/51

(Council Directive 92/51)

Summary

1. A Member State which imposes a series of requirements on foreign private security undertakings for the pursuit of their activities in its territory, namely the obligation:

– to be constituted as legal persons;

– to have a specific minimum share capital;

– to pay a security to a national body;

– to employ a minimum number of workers, insofar as the undertaking in question carries out its activities in fields other than the transport and distribution of explosives;

– generally, for members of their staff, to hold a special administrative authorisation issued by the national authorities;

fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.

(see paras 31, 36, 41, 48, 50, 55-56, operative part)

2. A Member State which fails to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure recognition of attestations of professional competence for the pursuit of the activity of private detective fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/51 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48.

(see para. 65, operative part)
Case C-30/03





Commission of the European Communities

v

Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)





«(Arbitration clause – Non-performance of contract – Recovery of moneys advanced – Procedure in default)»

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 16 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-68/03

Staatssecretaris van Financiën

v

D. Lipjes

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Article 28b(E)(3) – Services by intermediaries – Place of supply)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supply of services by intermediaries – Determination of the place of fiscal connection by Article 28b(E)(3) of the Sixth Directive – Scope – Principal transaction not subject to value added tax – Not relevant – Determination of the place of the principal transaction – Application of the specific provisions of Article 28b(A) and (B)

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 28b(A),(B) and (E)(3))

Article 28b(E)(3) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680, which provides, by way of derogation from Article 9(1) of the same directive, that the place of the supply of services rendered by intermediaries acting in the name and for the account of other persons, when such services form part of certain transactions, is to be the place where the transaction is carried out, is not to be interpreted as meaning that it covers only the services of intermediaries provided to a taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person for the purposes of value added tax.

As follows from its wording, that provision covers generally supplies of services rendered by intermediaries, without distinguishing according to whether or not the recipients of the services are subject to value added tax, and it does not matter, for the purposes of determining the place of an intermediary’s activities, whether the principal transaction is subject to value added tax or whether the transaction is non-taxable.

Moreover, when an intermediary transaction falls within the scope of Article 28b(E)(3), it is necessary, for the purposes of determining the place where the transaction underlying the supply of intermediary services was carried out, to refer to the specific provisions of Article 28b(A) and (B). The place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods is governed by the latter provision, which derogates from the general provisions of Article 8 of the Sixth Directive regulating the supply of goods within a Member State.

(see paras 18, 21, 23, 25-26, operative part 1-2)
Case C-284/03

État belge

v

Temco Europe SA

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13B(b) – Exempt transactions – Letting of immovable property – Licence to occupy)

Summary of the judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions laid down by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the letting of immovable property – Meaning – Grant of a licence in return for a payment set essentially on the basis of the area occupied – Included – Condition – Contracts having as their essential object the making available, in a passive manner, of premises or parts of buildings in exchange for a payment linked to the passage of time

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b))

Article 13B(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that transactions by which one company, through a number of contracts, simultaneously grants associated companies a licence to occupy a single property in return for a payment set essentially on the basis of the area occupied and by which the contracts, as performed, have as their essential object the making available, in a passive manner, of premises or parts of buildings in return for a payment linked to the passage of time, are transactions comprising the ‘letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision and not the provision of a service capable of being categorised in a different way.

(see para. 28, operative part)
Case C-193/03

Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH

v

Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Stuttgart)

(Social security – Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in another Member State – Article 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 – Health insurance fund applying a simplified full reimbursement procedure for bills for small amounts)

Summary of the Judgment

Social security for migrant workers – Health insurance – Reimbursement by the competent Member State of medical expenses incurred in another Member State – Application of the rates in effect in the Member State of residence – Article 34 of Regulation No 574/72 – Practice of a health insurance fund whereby medical expenses not exceeding a certain amount are reimbursed in full – Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 574/72, Art. 34)

In the absence of completion of the formalities giving entitlement, during a stay in a Member State other than the competent State, to receive the benefits in kind provided by the institution of the place of stay on behalf of the competent institution, Article 34 of Regulation No 574/72 enables persons covered by social insurance to obtain from the competent State reimbursement of expenses incurred during that stay at the rates administered by the institution of the place of stay. That provision is to be interpreted as not precluding a practice whereby a health insurance fund, in the application of national rules, reimburses medical costs incurred by its members during a stay in another Member State in full when those costs do not exceed a certain amount. The fact that that reimbursement is in full suffices to ensure that the reimbursement received by the person covered by social insurance is at least equivalent to, if not higher than, what that person would have received had reimbursement been made in the circumstances provided for in that provision.

(see paras 24, 27, operative part)
Case C-520/03

José Vicente Olaso Valero

v

Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana)

(Social policy – Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987/EEC – Scope – Definition of ‘claims’ – Definition of ‘pay’ – Compensation payable in the event of unfair dismissal)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987 – Scope – Definition of pay – Application of national law – National legislation including compensation for unfair dismissal – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 80/987, Art. 2(2))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987 – Scope – Definition of pay – National legislation including compensation for unfair dismissal awarded by judgment or administrative decision and excluding claims established in a conciliation procedure – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – Duties and powers of the national court

(Council Directive 80/987, Art. 2(2))

1. According to Article 2(2) of Council Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, it is for national law to specify the term ‘pay’ and to define it.

In this regard, the fact that Directive 80/987 links the payment of remuneration to reference periods does not exclude its application to compensation for unfair dismissal. If, therefore, the word ‘pay’, as defined by national law, includes that compensation, the latter falls within the ambit of Directive 80/987 as it stood even before it was amended by Directive 2002/74.

(see paras 31-33, operative part 1)

2. In connection with the application of Council Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, where, according to the national legislation in question, claims corresponding to compensation for unfair dismissal, awarded by judgment or administrative decision, fall within the definition of ‘pay’, identical claims, established in a conciliation procedure such as that in question in the circumstances of this case, must also be regarded as employees’ claims arising from contracts of employment or employment relationships and as relating to pay for the purposes of that directive. Workers who have been unfairly dismissed are in a comparable situation in so far as they are entitled to compensation where they are not reinstated.

The national court must therefore set aside domestic legislation which, in breach of the principle of equality, excludes the latter claims from the definition of ‘pay’ under that legislation.

(see paras 35, 38, operative part 2)
Case C-336/03

easyCar (UK) Ltd

v

Office of Fair Trading

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division)

(Protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts – Directive 97/7/EC – Contracts for the provision of transport services – Concept – Car hire contracts)

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 11 November 2004

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 March 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts – Directive 97/7 – Scope – Exemptions provided for under Article 3(2) – Contracts for the provision of transport services – Meaning – Contracts for the provision of car hire services – Included

(Parliament and Council Directive 97/7, Art. 3(2))

Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts is to be interpreted as meaning that ‘contracts for the provision of transport services’ can cover all contracts governing services in the field of transport, including those involving an activity which does not include, as such, the carriage of the customer or his goods, but which is aimed at enabling the customer to perform that carriage. That concept thus includes contracts for the provision of car hire services the essential nature of which is the making available to the consumer of a means of transport.

(see paras 23, 27, 31, operative part)
Case C-91/03

Kingdom of Spain

v

Council of the European Union

(Conservation and exploitation of fisheries resources – Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002)

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 13 January 2005

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 March 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Access for fishing vessels to the coastal bands of the Member States – Transitional arrangements introduced by Article 160 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal – Power of the Council to adopt rules having a content analogous to that article after those arrangements have expired – Permissible

(Art. 37 EC; Council Regulation No 2371/2002, Annex I, point 6)

2. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Access for fishing vessels to the coastal bands of the Member States – Specific arrangements restricting that access to the vessels of one Member State and having as their purpose the protection of the most sensitive Community waters – Purpose not entailing the application of criteria of reciprocity – Principle of non-discrimination – No breach

(Council Regulation No 2371/2002)

1. Article 160 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties, appearing in Part Four of that act relating to transitional measures and providing for restrictions on fishing, has not been applicable since the date fixed by Article 166 of that Act, viz., 31 December 2002.

None the less, the Community legislature may, exercising the competence conferred on it by Article 37 EC, adopt new rules with content analogous to the rule in Article 160 of the Act of Accession, such as those in point 6 of Annex I to Regulation No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy, which defines the conditions of access for Spanish fishing vessels to French coastal bands.

(see paras 27-29)





2. The purpose of Regulation No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy is, according to recital 14 in the preamble thereto, to protect the most sensitive Community waters while taking account of the need to preserve traditional fishing activities. The arrangements applicable to Spanish fishing vessels for access to French coastal bands, laid down in point 6 of Annex I to that regulation, do not breach the principle of non-discrimination because such a purpose does not of itself entail the application of criteria of reciprocity between Member States and because those arrangements do no more than extend the arrangements that have been in force since the Kingdom of Spain acceded to the Community.

(see paras 45, 50-51, 54-55)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Community legislation – Material scope – Services covered and services excluded – Distinguishing criteria – Holiday pay given to the recipient of a retirement pension – Benefit granted on the basis of objective criteria showing elements constituting an old-age benefit – Included

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1))

2. Social security for migrant workers – Unemployment – Fully unemployed cross-border worker – Right to old-age pension from the Member State of residence – Taking into account of period of unemployment in accordance with the legislation of that State

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 45(1) and (6))

Summary

1. A benefit can be regarded as a social security benefit falling within the material scope of Regulation No 1408/71 only if, first, it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position and, secondly, it relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of that regulation. With regard to the second condition, the distinction between benefits excluded from the scope of that regulation and those which fall within it is based essentially on the constituent elements of each particular benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions on which it is granted, and not on whether a benefit is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation.

It follows that a benefit, such as holiday pay granted to the recipient of a retirement pension, meets those two conditions if the provisions governing its grant confer on the recipients a legally defined right, that right is granted automatically to the persons meeting certain objective criteria and the elements constituting the benefit show that it may be considered an old-age pension.

(see paras 21, 23-24, operative part 1)

2. Article 45(6) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of the Member State of residence is to take account, for the purposes of the grant of a benefit such as holiday pay granted to the recipient of a retirement pension, of a period of full unemployment during which the former employed worker received unemployment benefits under Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of that regulation, as if the legislation administered by that institution applied to that worker during his last employment.

(see paras 34, 36, operative part 2)
Case C-142/04

Maria Aslanidou

v

Ypourgos Ygias & Pronoias

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias

‛Directive 92/51/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Occupational therapist’

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 14 July 2005 I-7183

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Directive 92/51 — Taking up or pursuit of a regulated profession on the same conditions as those which apply to nationals (Article 3) — Direct effect without the official recognition of a candidate's qualifications by the competent national authorities — Imposition of compensatory measures — Limits

(Council Directive 92/51, Art, 3(a))

Article 3(a) of Directive 92/51 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48 provides that the competent authority of the host Member State may not, on the grounds of inadequate qualifications, refuse to authorise a national of a Member State to take up or pursue a regulated profession on the same conditions as apply to its own nationals if the applicant holds the diploma, as defined in that directive, which is required in another Member State for the taking up or pursuit of the profession in question in its territory, such diploma having been awarded in a Member State.

Where national measures transposing the directive have not been adopted within the period prescribed by it, a national of a Member State may rely on that provision in order to obtain, in the host Member State, authorisation to pursue a regulated profession.

That possibility may not be made dependent on official recognition of the qualifications of the person concerned by the competent national authorities.

In addition, the compensatory measures referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 92/51 may be imposed on the person concerned only in so far as they are provided for in the national legislation in force at the time of processing the application in question, which it is for the national court to determine.

(see paras 31, 36, 42, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital — Restrictions — National rules limiting voting rights attaching to holdings of the capital of undertakings operating in the energy sector acquired by certain public undertakings — Not permissible

(Art. 56 EC)

Summary

A Member State which maintains in force rules providing for the automatic suspension of voting rights attaching to holdings in excess of 2% of the capital of undertakings operating in the electricity and gas sectors, where those holdings are acquired by public undertakings not quoted on regulated financial markets and enjoying a dominant position in their own domestic markets, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC.

Such rules mean that the category of public undertakings concerned is precluded from participating effectively in the management and control of the undertakings at issue and has the effect of dissuading public undertakings established in other Member States, in particular, from acquiring shares in those undertakings.

(see paras 30, 42, operative part)