ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Eligibility for assistance of expenses incurred by national bodies

(Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 30(1) and 32(1); Commission Regulation No 1685/2000, Annex, Rule No 1, point 1.8)

Summary

Point 1.8 of Rule No 1 in the Annex to Regulation No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds, as amended by Regulation No 448/2004, does not preclude a method of calculating overheads as eligible expenditure for the purposes of a project co-financed by the Structural Funds, on the sole ground that the method is based on a percentage or proportion, in particular, of wage costs or time worked.

Without prejudice to national rules laying down stricter requirements, overheads paid out by final beneficiaries constitute eligible expenditure, under point 1.8 of that rule, where they meet three requirements, that is to say, they are based on real costs, that those costs relate to the implementation of the operation co-financed by the Structural Funds and that the said overheads are allocated pro rata to the operation, according to a duly justified fair and equitable method. That latter condition in particular is not designed to impose a single method of calculation, but leaves to the Member States a discretion in the calculation of eligible expenditure. That requirement is intended only to make the taking into account of overheads as eligible expenditure subject to such overheads being allocated ‘pro rata to the operation, according to a duly justified fair and equitable method’. Consequently, point 1.8 cannot be interpreted as precluding methods of calculating eligible overheads based on a percentage or proportion, in particular, of wage costs or time worked, provided however that the final beneficiary is in a position to show that those overheads are allocated to the project according to a method which complies with the criteria set forth in that provision. The allocation to the project concerned of overheads, such as, for example, wage costs, costs connected to real property or those relating to information technology, must, in the light of those criteria, take account of the relation between the number of persons working on carrying out the project, the number of working hours which they devote to it or the amount of wages paid on that account, and the average number of persons working for the organisation concerned, the average number of hours worked or the average amount of wages paid.

(see paras 22, 25-28, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax provisions

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC))

Summary

Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes a resident taxpayer from being refused, by the Member State of his residence, joint assessment to income tax with his spouse from whom he is not separated and who lives in another Member State, on the ground that that spouse received in that Member State both more than 10% of the household’s income and more than a certain ceiling, where the income received by that spouse in the second Member State is not there subject to income tax.

A resident taxpayer whose spouse is resident in the same Member State and receives there only income not subject to tax is objectively in the same situation as a resident taxpayer whose spouse is resident in another Member State and receives there only income not subject to tax because, in both cases, the household’s taxable income is derived from the professional activity of only one of the spouses and, in both cases, that spouse is the resident taxpayer. The State of residence of such a taxpayer is the only State which can take account of the taxpayer’s personal and family circumstances, since he is not only resident in that State but, additionally, receives the entire taxable income of the household there.

(see paras 26, 29, 31-32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions

(Art. 49 EC)

Summary

Article 49 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which excludes all reimbursement by a national social security institution of the costs occasioned by treatment of persons insured with it in private hospitals in another Member State, except those relating to treatment provided to children under 14 years of age.

Such a measure may not be justified by the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system, because the absolute terms, with the exception of the case of children under 14 years of age, of the prohibition laid down by that legislation are not appropriate to the objective pursued, since measures which are less restrictive and more in keeping with the freedom to provide services could be adopted, such as a prior authorisation scheme which complies with the requirements imposed by Community law and, if appropriate, the determination of scales for reimbursement of the costs of treatment.

(see paras 35, 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(1))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(1))

Summary

1. The fact that a taxable person analyses the financial situation of clients canvassed by him with a view to obtaining credit for them does not preclude recognition of the service supplied as being a negotiation of credit which is exempt under Article 13B(d)(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes if the negotiation of credit offered by that taxable person falls to be considered as the principal service to which the provision of financial advice is ancillary, in such a way that the latter shares the same tax treatment as the former. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the proceedings before it.

(see para. 20, operative part 1)

2. The fact that a taxable person has no contractual link with any of the parties to a credit agreement to the conclusion of which he has contributed and that he does not establish direct contact with one of those parties does not preclude that taxable person from providing a service of negotiation of credit which is exempt under Article 13B(d)(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

The transactions exempted under Article 13B(d)(1) of the Sixth Directive are defined in terms of the nature of the services provided and not in terms of the person supplying or receiving the service. That provision, in fact, makes no reference to the latter. The same observation may be made as regards the nature of the relationship between the negotiator and the parties to the contract, since there is no reference to that subject in the wording of Article 13B(d)(1) of the Sixth Directive.

Moreover, the wording of Article 13B(d)(1) of the Sixth Directive does not, in principle, preclude the activity of negotiation from being broken down into separate services which may then fall under the concept of ‘negotiation of credit’ for the purposes of that provision and benefit from the exemption for which it provides. In those circumstances, it follows from the principle of fiscal neutrality that operators must be able to choose the form of organisation which, from the strictly commercial point of view, best suits them, without running the risk of having their operations excluded from the exemption provided for in Article 13B(d)(1) of the Sixth Directive.

(see paras 25-26, 34-35, 40, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Five-year period – Concept of ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 10(1))

2. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Concept of ‘proper reasons’ for non-use

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 12(1))

Summary

1. The ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Directive 89/104 on trade marks must be determined in each Member State in accordance with the procedural rules on registration in force in that State.

That provision defines the beginning of the period of use and therefore the starting point of the five-year period for which it provides in relation to the registration procedure, an area which is not harmonised by the directive. It follows that the Member States are free to organise their registration procedure and, accordingly, they can decide in particular when that procedure is to be regarded as having been completed.

(see paras 27-31, operative part 1)

2. Article 12(1) of Directive 89/104 on trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that obstacles having a direct relationship with a trade mark which make its use impossible or unreasonable and which are independent of the will of the proprietor of that mark constitute ‘proper reasons for non-use’ of the mark.

(see para. 55, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Directive 2001/34 – Admission of securities to official stock exchange listing

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/34, Art. 21)

Summary

Article 21 of Directive 2001/34 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities is to be interpreted as not precluding a national legislature from laying down, for cases where the information recorded in listing particulars published with a view to admitting securities to official stock exchange listing proves to be inaccurate or misleading, administrative penalties imposable not only upon the persons expressly mentioned in those particulars as responsible but also upon the issuer of the securities and, indiscriminately, upon the members of the issuer’s board of directors, regardless of whether the board members have been identified as responsible in the listing particulars.

Since the directive does not expressly provide for a system of penalties applicable to the persons on whom responsibility for the listing particulars is incumbent, the Member States are empowered to choose the penalties which seem appropriate to them. They must, however, exercise that power in accordance with Community law and its general principles, and consequently with the principle of proportionality.

In that regard, a system of civil, criminal or administrative penalties established at national level in respect of the abovementioned persons does not run counter to the objective of that directive, which is to ensure, inter alia, adequate information of investors, where the system is proportionate to the gravity of the infringement consisting in the giving of inaccurate or misleading information in the listing particulars.

(see paras 50, 52-53, 55-56, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4(4))

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4)

3. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409

(Council Directives 79/409, Art. 4(4), and 92/43, Arts 6(2) and 7)

Summary

1. Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds requires Member States to take, in respect of special protection areas, appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of that article.

Member States must comply with the obligations arising inter alia under that provision, even where the area in question has not been classified as a special protection area, provided that it should have been so classified.

(see paras 17-18)

2. The Inventory of Important Bird Areas, although not legally binding on the Member States concerned, contains scientific evidence making it possible to assess whether a Member State has complied with its obligation to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for conservation of the protected species.

(see para. 19)

3. Since the ‘Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche’ area was classified as a special protection area on 28 December 1998, the provision applicable to that area since that date is Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and not the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds.

So far as concerns areas classified as special protection areas, Article 7 of Directive 92/43 provides that the obligations arising under Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 are replaced, inter alia, by the obligations arising under Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 as from the date of implementation of the latter directive or the date of classification under Directive 79/409, where the latter date is later.

(see paras 24-25)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Special non-contributory benefits

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(2a), Art. 10a, and Annex IIa)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages

(Art. 39 EC; Council Regulations Nos 1612/68, Art. 7, and 1408/71, Art. 4(2a), Art. 10a, and Annex IIa)

Summary

1. A benefit such as that provided under the Netherlands Law on provision of incapacity benefit to disabled young people (Wet arbeidsongeschiktheidsvoorziening jonggehandicapten), referred to in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1223/98, must be regarded as a special non‑contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of Regulation No 1408/71, with the result that only the coordinating provision in Article 10a of that regulation must be applied and that payment of that benefit may validly be reserved to persons who reside on the territory of the Member State which provides the benefit. The fact that the person concerned previously received a benefit for disabled young people which was exportable is of no relevance to the application of those provisions.

(see para. 38, operative part 1)

2. Article 39 EC and Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which applies Article 4(2a) and Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1223/98, and provides that a special non-contributory benefit listed in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 may be granted only to persons who are resident in the national territory. However, implementation of that legislation must not entail an infringement of the rights which a person enjoys from the freedom of movement of workers which goes beyond what is required to achieve the legitimate objective pursued by the national legislation. It is for the national court, which must, so far as possible, interpret the national legislation in conformity with Community law, to take account, in particular, of the fact that the worker in question has maintained all of his economic and social links to the Member State of origin.

(see paras 56, 58, operative part 2)
Case C-237/05

Commission of the European Communities

v

Hellenic Republic

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Provision of assistance services to farmers for the year 2001 — Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 — Implementation in Greece of the integrated administration and control system (IACS) — Absence of call for tenders — Application inadmissible’

Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 15 February 2007 I-8205

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 11 October 2007 I-8237

Summary of the Judgment

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement terminated before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion — Inadmissibility

(Art 226 EC)

In relation to the award of public procurement contracts, an action for failure to fulfil obligations is inadmissible if, when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, the contract in question had already been completely performed.

(see para. 29)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions

(Arts 45 EC, 49 EC and 55 EC; Council Regulation No 2092/91)

Summary

A Member State which requires private inspection bodies of organically‑farmed products approved in another Member State to maintain an establishment in national territory in order to be able to provide inspection services there fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

In the first place, the auxiliary and preparatory role conferred on private bodies by Regulation No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs vis-à-vis the supervisory authority cannot be regarded as a direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority for the purposes of Article 55 EC read in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, justifying an exception by virtue of those provisions, but as an additional activity separable from the exercise of such authority, which does not permit the extension of the exception allowed by those provisions to the entire profession referred to by the regulation. Moreover, such a requirement goes beyond what is objectively necessary to attain the objective of consumer protection capable of justifying interference with the freedom to provide services.

(see paras 31-32, 42, 46, 52-54, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Procedures for the award of public service contracts

–

Directive 92/50

–

Scope

–

Contracting authority holding shares in a company which is legally separate from it with one or more bodies constituted under private law (Council Directive 92/50) (see paras 22, 24, 26, 29-33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 11 and 15(2) 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) – Award of IT services for the Commune di Mantova – Direct award without prior publication of a contract notice.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States – Injury – Establishing a causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Taking into account of matters extraneous to the subsidy

(Council Regulation No 2026/97, Art. 8(7))

Summary

In determining, in an anti-subsidy proceeding, injury to the Community industry, the Council and the Commission are under an obligation to consider whether the injury on which they intend to base their conclusions actually derives from the subsidised imports and must disregard any injury deriving from other factors, particularly from the conduct of Community producers.

Where the institutions have complied with that obligation and concluded that a factor arising from anti-competitive conduct of the Community producers constituted but a small percentage of the final price of the product in question, so that such price could be regarded as a reliable indicator for the purposes of establishing what injury was suffered by the Community industry, it is for the parties pleading the invalidity of the regulation imposing the countervailing duty to adduce evidence to show that that factor could have had an effect of such magnitude that the final prices of the product could no longer be used to establish the existence of that injury and that there was a causal link between it and the subsidised imports.

(see paras 35, 51, 54)
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-353/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/54/EC – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 8)

2. Actions for failure to act – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with 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) – Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2007 – Commission v United Kingdom

(Case C‑405/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Pollution and nuisance – Treatment of urban waste water – Lack of measures to ensure the adequate treatment of urban waste water from a number of agglomerations

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC ) (see para. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste‑water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) – Failure to ensure adequate treatment of urban waste water from a number of agglomerations.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate treatment was provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtownabbey, Omagh and Portrush by 31 December 2000 at the latest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.