ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
19

In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Must the “reasonable compensation” which a farmer must pay to the holder of a Community plant variety right in accordance with Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94, because he has used propagating material of a protected variety obtained through planting and has not fulfilled the obligations laid down in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 8 of Regulation No 1768/95, be calculated on the basis of the average amount of the fee charged for the licensed production of a corresponding quantity of propagating material of protected varieties of the plant species concerned in the same area, or must the (lower) remuneration which would be payable in the event of authorised planting under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 5 of Regulation No 1768/95 be taken as a basis for the calculation instead? 2. In the event that only the remuneration for authorised planting must be taken as a basis for the calculation: In the circumstances described above, may the holder, in the event of a single intentional or negligent infringement, calculate the damage for which he must be compensated in accordance with Article 94(2) of Regulation No 2100/94 as a lump sum based on the fee for the grant of a licence for the production of propagating material? 3. Is it permitted or even required, when assessing the “reasonable compensation” due under Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 or the further compensation due under Article 94(2) of that regulation, for the special monitoring costs of an organisation which protects the rights of numerous holders to be taken into account in such a way that double the compensation usually agreed, or double the remuneration due under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94, is awarded?’
9

With regard to the calculation of levies, Article 15 of the basic regulation provided: ‘1. Before the end of each marketing year, the following shall be recorded: (a) forecast of the production of A and B sugar, A and B isoglucose and A and B inulin syrup attributable to the marketing year concerned; (b) forecast of the quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup disposed of for consumption within the Community during the marketing year concerned; (c) the exportable surplus obtained by subtracting the quantity referred to in (a) from the quantity referred to in (b); (d) an estimate of the average loss or revenue per tonne of sugar for export obligations to be fulfilled during the current marketing year. This average loss or revenue shall be equal to the difference between the total amount of refunds and the total amount of levies on the total tonnage of export obligations in question; (e) an estimate of overall loss or revenue, obtained by multiplying the surplus referred to in (c) by the average loss or revenue referred to in (d). 2. Before the end of the 2005/2006 marketing year and without prejudice to Article 10(3), (4), (5) and (6), the following shall be recorded cumulatively for the 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 marketing years: (a) the exportable surplus established on the basis of the definitive production of A and B sugar, A and B isoglucose and A and B inulin syrup and the definitive quantity of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup disposed of for consumption within the Community; (b) the average loss or revenue per tonne of sugar resulting from the total export obligations concerned, calculated using the method described in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(d) above; (c) the overall loss or revenue, obtained by multiplying the surplus referred to in (a) by the average loss or revenue referred to in (b); (d) the sum total of the basic production levies and the B levies charged. The estimate of overall loss or revenue referred to in paragraph 1(e) shall be adjusted by the difference between the amounts referred to in (c) and (d). … 8. Detailed rules for applying this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 42(2), and shall cover in particular: — the amounts of the levies to be collected, …’
7

Where a claim under section 80 of the VATA 1994 is successful, the taxable person may also be entitled to interest on the sum overpaid calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 78 of the VATA 1994. That section provides: ‘Interest in certain cases of official error (1) Where, due to an error on the part of the Commissioners, a person has - (a) accounted to them for an amount by way of output tax which was not output tax due from him and, as a result, they are liable under section 80(2A) to pay (or repay) an amount to him, or (b) failed to claim credit under section 25 for an amount for which he was entitled so to claim credit and which they are in consequence liable to pay to him, or (c) (otherwise than in a case falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above) paid them by way of VAT an amount that was not VAT due and which they are in consequence liable to repay to him, or (d) suffered delay in receiving payment of an amount due to him from them in connection with VAT, then, if and to the extent that they would not be liable to do so apart from this section, they shall pay interest to him on that amount for the applicable period, but subject to the following provisions of this section. ... (3) Interest under this section shall be payable at the rate applicable under section 197 of the Finance Act 1996 ...’
21

It is against that background that the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Articles 3(1) of the First Directive …, 2(1) of the Second Directive … and 1 and 1a of the Third Directive … be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national civil law, in particular through the rules laid down in Articles 503(1), 504, 505 and 570 of the Civil Code, from providing that if, when two vehicles collide, the event is not attributable to the fault of either driver, and it gives rise to personal injury to the passenger in one of the vehicles (the injured person seeking compensation), the compensation to which the latter is entitled is to be refused or limited, on the ground that that passenger has contributed to the occurrence of the injury, for he was travelling in the vehicle, in the front passenger seat, without fastening his seat-belt as required by national legislation? — having regard to the fact that it has been established that when the two vehicles involved collided, because of that collision and because he had not fastened his seat-belt, that passenger struck his head with force against the windscreen, breaking it, which resulted in deep cuts to his head and face? — and having regard to the fact that, one of the vehicles involved not being covered by valid and effective insurance with any insurer at the date of the accident, the defendants and respondents in the proceedings include, in addition to the insurer of the other vehicle involved, the owner of the uninsured vehicle, its driver and the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, who and which may, in so far as strict liability is concerned, be jointly and severally liable to pay such compensation?’
Case C-225/11

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

v

Able UK Ltd

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom))

‛VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 151(1)(c) — Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Supply of services made in Member States party to the North Atlantic Treaty — Scope

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 151(1)(c))

Article 151(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty is exempt from VAT under that provision only when:

— those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and

— those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.

(see para. 30, operative part)

Case C-225/11

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

v

Able UK Ltd

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom))

‛VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 151(1)(c) — Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Supply of services made in Member States party to the North Atlantic Treaty — Scope

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 151(1)(c))

Article 151(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty is exempt from VAT under that provision only when:

— those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and

— those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.

(see para. 30, operative part)
Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 2006/96, must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions which could have the effect of limiting, or even gradually rendering impossible, the running of gaming on low-prize machines anywhere other than in casinos and gaming arcades are capable of constituting ‘technical regulations’, within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be the subject of communication to the Commission as provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the directive, in so far as it is established that those provisions constitute conditions which can significantly influence the nature or the marketing of the product concerned.

(see para. 40, operative part)
The first paragraph of Article 179, Article 180 and Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct, to the extent that it does not render the exercise of that right excessively difficult or impossible in practice. It is for the national court to carry out such an assessment and it may take into account, inter alia, a subsequent considerable extension of the limitation period and the duration of a value added tax registration procedure which had to be completed within that same period for it to be possible to exercise that right to deduct.

The principle of fiscal neutrality precludes a penalty consisting in a refusal of the right to deduct if VAT is accounted for belatedly, but does not preclude the payment of default interest, provided that that penalty complies with the principle of proportionality, which it is for the national court to determine.

Although Member States may impose penalties in the event of non-compliance with obligations which seek to ensure that the tax is collected correctly and that evasion is prevented, those penalties must not go further than is necessary to attain the objective pursued. In view of the preponderant position which the right to deduct has in the common system of value added tax, a penalty consisting of an absolute refusal of the right to deduct appears disproportionate where no evasion or detriment to the budget of the State is ascertained.

(see paras 67, 70, 77, operative part 2)
International agreements — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Association Council set up by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Family reunification — Family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Concept — National of a non-member country who was married to a Turkish worker and lived with him for more than three years — Included

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 7, first para.)
The concept of the ‘location’ of an activity for the purposes of Articles 13 et seq. of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1606/98, must be considered to be a matter, not for the legislation of the Member States, but for European Union law and, consequently, for interpretation by the Court. For the purposes of interpreting that concept, the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part. In that regard, the concept of the ‘location’ of an activity must be understood, in accordance with the primary meaning of the words used, as referring to the place where, in practical terms, the person concerned carries out the actions connected with that activity.

(see paras 52, 53, 56, 57)
It follows from recital 51 in the preamble to Regulation No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, which replaced and repeated all the provisions of Regulation No 2991/94 laying down standards for spreadable fats, that Regulation No 2991/94 defined the marketing standards for milk products and established a uniform classification of those fats. In connection with that classification, the derogation provided for in point (a) of the third subparagraph of point I(2) of Annex XV to Regulation No 1234/2007 is necessarily an exception. Moreover, Article 121(c)(i) of that regulation expressly empowers the Commission to draw up an exhaustive list of the products to which that derogation applies, on the basis of the lists sent by the Member States.

Consequently, products which satisfy the requirements of point (a) of the third subparagraph of point I(2) of Annex XV to Regulation No 1234/2007 cannot benefit from that derogation without a prior decision of the Commission finding those requirements to be satisfied. A contrary interpretation would call into question both the competence of the Commission, as delegated to it by the Council by virtue of Article 121(c)(i) of Regulation No 1234/2007, and the effectiveness of that regulation, in so far as it aims to standardise the usage of marketing designations in order to preserve competition and protect consumers.

(see paras 56-61)
—

the transfer, transformation or conversion, disposal, supply as a guarantee, as well as transformation or alteration of the allocation of strategic elements of the assets of the abovementioned undertakings and of the basic networks and infrastructure necessary for the economic and social life of the country as well as its security; fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC. Such a scheme does not appear to be a suitable means of attaining the objective of ensuring continuity of certain basic services and the operation of networks considered to be necessary to the economic and social life of a country; in particular the country’s necessary energy and water supply, the provision of telecommunications services, and the management of the country’s two largest ports. The prior authorisation scheme produces its effects before the company has even adopted a decision, namely without a risk being established, even a potential one, of interference with the security of supply. Moreover, at the time of issuing the authorisation, it is not certain that all the cases of real and serious threats to the security of energy supply may be identified and taken into account. Moreover, the limitation to the exercise of voting rights, even, if necessary, the refusal to recognise those rights which give rise to the mechanism concerned applies to all decisions giving rise to a vote by shareholders and not only those capable of specifically threatening the stated objective of that law. Furthermore, that scheme cannot be considered to be proportionate to the objective pursued since it confers a discretionary power on the administration which is difficult for the courts to control and which includes a risk of discrimination. Finally, as regards the provision on the control of decisions, the circumstances in which the right to object may be exercised are potentially numerous, undetermined and indeterminable and leave the national authorities too much discretion. (see paras 64, 68, 70-72, 79, 86-87)
Article 13A(1)(g) of Sixth Council Directive 77/3887 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, interpreted in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, precludes the VAT exemption for out-patient services supplied by commercial service-providers being made subject to a condition by virtue of which the costs relating to those services must, during the preceding calendar year, have been borne wholly or partly by the statutory social security or social welfare authorities in at least two thirds of cases, where that condition is not capable of ensuring equal treatment in relation to the recognition, for the purposes of that provision, of the ‘charitable’ nature of organisations other than bodies governed by public law.

The national court, in the light of all the specific factors of the dispute before it, must also take into account the requirements of Article 13A(2)(b) of the Sixth Directive. Whatever the interpretation given to the expression ‘closely linked’ under Article 13A(1)(g) of the Sixth Directive, the first indent of Article 13A(2)(b) thereof in any event makes exemption conditional on the supply of goods or services concerned being essential to the transactions exempted.

Furthermore, under the second indent of Article 13A(2)(b) of the Sixth Directive, the supply of goods or services is excluded from the exemption under Article 13A(1)(g) if its basic purpose is to obtain additional income for the organisation through transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT.

(see paras 60-63, operative part)
Case C-363/11

Epitropos tou Elegktikou Synedriou sto Ypourgeio Politismou kai Tourismou

v

Ypourgeio Politismou kai Tourismou — Ypiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio (Greece))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature — National court of auditors ruling on prior authorisation of public expenditure — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 December 2012

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Concept

(Art. 267 TFEU)

A national body cannot be classified as ‘a court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU where it is not an independent body, in the sense that it cannot be regarded as acting as a third party in relation to the administrative authority which adopted the contested decision. Consequently, that classification cannot be accorded if that body has an organisational link with the administrative authority concerned.

That applies to a body one of whose members is the author of the contested administrative decision and which, in exercising its powers relating to the main proceedings, is called upon to adopt a decision which is not part of proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature, contrary to the requirements of the case-law stemming from Article 267 TFEU.

(see paras 18, 20, 21, 23, 28)

Case C-363/11

Epitropos tou Elegktikou Synedriou sto Ypourgeio Politismou kai Tourismou

v

Ypourgeio Politismou kai Tourismou — Ypiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio (Greece))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature — National court of auditors ruling on prior authorisation of public expenditure — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 December 2012

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Concept

(Art. 267 TFEU)

A national body cannot be classified as ‘a court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU where it is not an independent body, in the sense that it cannot be regarded as acting as a third party in relation to the administrative authority which adopted the contested decision. Consequently, that classification cannot be accorded if that body has an organisational link with the administrative authority concerned.

That applies to a body one of whose members is the author of the contested administrative decision and which, in exercising its powers relating to the main proceedings, is called upon to adopt a decision which is not part of proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature, contrary to the requirements of the case-law stemming from Article 267 TFEU.

(see paras 18, 20, 21, 23, 28)
Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1348/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters and repealing Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that judicial documents addressed to a party whose place of residence or habitual abode is in another Member State are placed in the case file, and deemed to have been effectively served, if that party has failed to appoint a representative who is authorised to accept service and is resident in the first Member State, in which the judicial proceedings are taking place.

Since Regulation No 1393/2007 lays down the means of transmission of the judicial documents in an exhaustive manner, it does not provide any place for, and therefore precludes, a procedure for notional service such as that in force in Poland.

Moreover, such a system for notional service deprives of all practical effect the right of the person to be served, whose place of residence or habitual abode is not in the Member State in which the proceedings take place, to benefit from actual and effective receipt of that document because it does not guarantee for that addressee, inter alia, either knowledge of the judicial act in sufficient time to prepare a defence or a translation of that document.

The objectives of Regulation No 1393/2007, namely improving and expediting the transmission of judicial documents between Member States, cannot be attained, if national provisions undermine in any way the rights of the defence of the addressees, which derive from the right to a fair hearing, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(see paras 32, 34-36, 41, 42 and operative part)