ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
A cruise ship falls within the scope of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12, as amended by Directive 2005/33 with regard to the criterion of ‘regular services’, as laid down in Article 2(3g) thereof, provided that it operates cruises, with or without intermediate calls, finishing in the port of departure or another port, provided that those cruises are organised at a particular frequency, on specific dates and, in principle, at specified departure and arrival times, with interested persons being able to choose freely between the various cruises offered, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

The validity of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12, as amended by Directive 2005/33, cannot be examined in the light of the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda or the principle of cooperation in good faith enshrined in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU on the ground that that provision of the directive may lead to an infringement of Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol Convention 73/78). The European Union is not a contracting party to the Marpol 73/78 Convention, including the protocol signed on 26 September 1997 inserting Annex VI into the convention, and is not bound by it. Nor can the validity of Article 4a(4) be examined in the light of the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda, since that principle applies only to those subject to international law who are contracting parties to a specific international agreement and which, as a result, are bound by it. Furthermore, it does not appear that Annex VI constitutes an expression of the customary rules enshrined by general international law which, as such, are binding upon the institutions of the Union and form part of the legal order of the Union.

Moreover, it is not for the Court to rule on the impact of Annex VI on the scope of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32. To interpret the provisions of secondary law in the light of an obligation imposed by an international agreement, such as the 1997 Protocal inserting Annex VI in the convention, which does not bind all the Member States would amount to extending the scope of that obligation to those Member States which are not contracting parties to such an agreement. The latter Member States must however be regarded as ‘third countries’ for the purposes of that agreement. Such an extension would be incompatible with the general international law principle of the relative effect of treaties, according to which treaties must neither harm nor benefit third countries (‘pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt’).

(see paras 37-39, 41, 47, 50, 54, operative parts 2, 3)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-109/11)

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group’

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons — Concept — Possibility for the Member States to regard closely linked persons as a single taxable person — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person — Failure to fulfil obligations — No such failure (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 11) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-109/11)

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group’

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons — Concept — Possibility for the Member States to regard closely linked persons as a single taxable person — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person — Failure to fulfil obligations — No such failure (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 11) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2012 —

Commission v Greece



(Case C‑297/11)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union water policy — River basin management plan — Publication — Public information and consultation — Failure to notify the Commission

1. 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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60, Arts 13(1) to (3) and 6, 14(1)(c), and 15(1)) (see para. 13)

2. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — National system pleaded as justification — Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paras 14, 17)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 13(1), (2) and (6), 14(1)(c) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — River basin management plans — Publication — Information and consultation of the public — Failure to send copies of management plans to the Commission.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to draw up, by 22 December 2009, the river basin management plans for both river basins located entirely within its own territory and international river basins, and by failing to send copies of those plans, by 22 March 2010, to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13(1) to (3) and (6) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and, in addition, by failing to institute, by 22 December 2008, the public information and consultation procedure regarding the draft river basin management plans, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive;
3

The seventh, eighteenth, twenty-first and twenty-second recitals in the preamble to Directive 90/314 state: ‘… tourism plays an increasingly important role in the economies of the Member States; … the package system is a fundamental part of tourism; … the package travel industry in Member States would be stimulated to greater growth and productivity if at least a minimum of common rules were adopted in order to give it a Community dimension; … … … the organiser and/or retailer party to the contract should be liable to the consumer for the proper performance of the obligations arising from the contract; … moreover, the organiser and/or retailer should be liable for the damage resulting for the consumer from failure to perform or improper performance of the contract unless the defects in the performance of the contract are attributable neither to any fault of theirs nor to that of another supplier of services; … … both the consumer and the package travel industry would benefit if organisers and/or retailers were placed under an obligation to provide sufficient evidence of security in the event of insolvency; … Member States should be at liberty to adopt, or retain, more stringent provisions relating to package travel for the purpose of protecting the consumer’.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —



Commission v Portugal

(Case C-223/11)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union water policy — River basin district management plans — Publication and notification to the Commission — None — Information and consultation of the public on the envisaged management plans — None

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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60) (see paras 16, 29)

Re:

Infringement of Articles 13(1), (2) and (6), 14(1)(c) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — River basin district management plans — Publication — Information and consultation of the public — Commission not notified of copy management plans.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rules that, the Portuguese Republic, by failing within the prescribed period:

– to publish the national and international river basin district management plans;

– to publish and to submit to the public, including users, for comment the envisaged river basin district management plans, and

– to send the European Commission the copies of those plans,

has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 13(6) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 —

Commission v Austria



(Case C‑352/11)

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of that directive

1. 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. 9)

2. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Enforcement in part — Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 11)

3. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — National system pleaded as justification — Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 13)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that those installations are operated in accordance with the requirements provided for under that directive.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to grant permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, to reconsider and, if necessary, renew existing permits, and to ensure that all existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 —

Cetarsa v Commission



(Case C-181/11 P)

Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Fines — Equal treatment — Maximum limit of 10% of turnover — Cooperation — Distortion of evidence — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 56, 57, 96, 97)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Distortion of national law relied on as evidence — Admissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 59)

3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Application to the appeal procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 60, 61)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see para. 62)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see para. 64)

6. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53(1)) (see paras 71, 101)

7. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Distinction between the final amount and the intermediate amount of the fine — Consequences (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)(2)) (see paras 80-85)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T-33/05 Cetarsa v Commission , by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), and a cross-appeal by the Commission seeking to have the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant increased.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) to pay the costs of the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 —

XXXLutz Marken v OHIM

(Case C-306/11 P)

Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark natura selection — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-41)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 50)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-54/09 XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil) dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 (Case R 1787/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and XXXLutz Marken GmbH — Likelihood of confusion between the figurative signs ‘natura selection’ and ‘Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil’ — Erroneous assessment of the similarity of those signs — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
37

Furthermore, the fact that the supplies of timber at issue were effected with a view to alleviating the consequences of a case of force majeure cannot, in itself, lead to the conclusion that those supplies were made on an occasional basis and not ‘for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis’ within the terms of Article 9(1) of the VAT Directive. It must be observed in this respect that such supplies may fall within the scope of continuous exploitation of tangible property. The fruits of tangible property, such as timber from a forest, may, by their very nature and depending on their characteristics and, in particular, their age, not be suitable for immediate economic exploitation, as a certain period of time may be objectively necessary before those fruits can become amenable to economic exploitation. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the supplies of timber which have taken place in the meantime, as a result of alleged force majeure, do not come within the scope of exploitation of tangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the VAT Directive.
8

Under the general rules for the interpretation of the CN, which are set out in Section I A of Part One of Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87: ‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles: 1. The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions. ... 3. When, by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods; (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable; (c) when goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. ... 6. For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section and chapter notes also apply, unless the context requires otherwise.’
10

Article 23 of the CIVA, in the version in force in the financial year concerned (2000), provided: ‘1. Where the taxable person, in the course of his business, makes supplies of goods or services some of which do not give rise to the right to deduct, input tax shall be deductible only in direct proportion to the annual amount of the transactions which give rise to the right to deduct. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the previous paragraph, the taxable person may make the deduction in accordance with the actual use of all or part of the goods and services used, provided that prior notice is given to the Directorate-General for Direct and Indirect Taxes, without prejudice to the possibility for the latter to impose special conditions on it or to terminate that procedure in the event of significant distortions in the taxation. 3. The tax authority may require the taxpayer to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph: (a) where the taxable person carries out separate economic activities; (b) where the application of the procedure referred to in paragraph l results in significant distortion in the taxation. 4. The specific proportion of deduction referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made up of a fraction having, as numerator, the amount, exclusive of VAT, of turnover per year attributable to the supply of goods and provision of services in respect of which VAT is deductible under Articles 19 and 20(1) and, as denominator, the amount, exclusive of VAT, of turnover per year of all the transactions carried out by the taxable person, including exempt transactions and those outside the scope of the tax, particularly grants not subject to VAT which are not subsidies for plant or equipment. 5. However, the computation referred to in the preceding paragraph does not include supplies of fixed assets which have been used in the business or real estate and financial transactions that are incidental to the taxable person’s business. 6. The proportion of the deduction provisionally calculated, on the basis of the amount of the transactions carried out the previous year, shall be corrected in accordance with the values for the year to which it relates, which involves the corresponding adjustment of the deductions made, which is to appear in the declaration of the final period of the relevant year. 7. Taxable persons who start or substantially change a business may deduct tax on the basis of a provisional pro rata estimate, which must be mentioned in the declarations referred to in Articles 30 and 31. 8. In order to determine the proportion of the deduction, the quotient is rounded up to the nearest hundredth. 9. For the application of this Article, the Minister for Finance and the Budget may, for certain activities, regard as non-existent the transactions giving rise to the deduction or those which do not confer that right, in so far as they are a negligible part of the total turnover and that the procedure provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 is impractical.’