ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of capital – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Arts 39 EC, 43 EC and 56 EC)

2. Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Income tax

(Art. 56 EC)

Summary

1. A situation in which natural persons residing in a Member State and liable to unlimited taxation in that State inherit a house situated in another Member State is one that is covered by Article 56 EC. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether Articles 39 EC and 43 EC apply.

(see para. 19)

2. Article 56 EC precludes income-tax legislation of a Member State under which natural persons who are resident and liable to unlimited taxation are entitled to have (i) losses from the letting or leasing of an immovable property deducted from the taxable amount in the year in which those losses arise, and (ii) the income from such property assessed on the basis of the application of the decreasing-balance method of depreciation, only if the property in question is situated on the territory of that Member State.

The tax position of a natural person residing and liable to unlimited taxation in the Member State concerned who has an immovable property in another Member State is less favourable than it would be if that property were situated in the first Member State, since that person is, in any event, deprived of a cash-flow advantage. That fiscal disadvantage is liable to discourage such a person both from investing in an immovable property that is situated in another Member State and from keeping any such property of which he is the proprietor and, therefore, the legislation at issue constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital which is prohibited, in principle, by Article 56 EC.

Even on the assumption that the objective of encouraging the construction of rental property in order to satisfy the demand for such housing on the part of the national population is capable of justifying a restriction on the free movement of capital, it does not appear that such a national measure – which makes a clear distinction according to whether or not the housing intended for rent is situated on the national territory – is appropriate for securing the attainment of that objective. Instead of targeting places where the shortage of such housing is particularly acute, the national provision at issue disregards differing needs in different parts of the Member State concerned. In addition, the decreasing-balance method of depreciation can be applied to all categories of rental property, from the most basic to the most luxurious. That being the case, it cannot be assumed that private investors, who are motivated in particular by financial considerations, will meet the allegedly socio-political objective of that provision.

(see paras 25-27, 31-33, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Unfair clauses in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 6(1))

Summary

Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal hearing an action for enforcement of an arbitration award which has become final and was made in the absence of the consumer is required, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, to assess of its own motion whether an arbitration clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, in so far as, under national rules of procedure, it can carry out such an assessment in similar actions of a domestic nature. If that is the case, it is for that court or tribunal to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause.

For the purpose of that assessment, in view of the nature and importance of the public interest underlying the protection which Directive 93/13 confers on consumers, Article 6 of the directive must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy.

(see paras 52, 59, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EC/Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Equal treatment

(EC/Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons, Arts 1, 5, 7 and 16 and Annex I, Arts 12 and 17 to 19)

Summary

The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, in particular, Articles 1, 5, 7 and 16 thereof and also Articles 12 and 17 to 19 of Annex I thereto, do not preclude the legislation of a Member State from requiring a person, who is a national of that Member State and employed in the territory thereof, to join the statutory pension insurance scheme of that Member State, despite the fact that that person is a member of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law when members of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by the law of that Member State are not obliged to join that insurance scheme.

(see para. 50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the supply of buildings and the land on which they stand

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 4(3)(a) and 13B(g))

Summary

Article 13B(g) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in Article 13B(g) does not cover the supply of land still occupied by a dilapidated building that is to be demolished and replaced by a new building and whose demolition, paid for by the vendor, had already begun before the actual supply took place. For value added tax purposes, such supply and such demolition form a single transaction, given that, taken as a whole, the aim of the transactions was not to supply the existing building and the land it stands on but land that has not been built on, regardless of how far demolition of the old building had progressed at the moment the land was actually supplied.

(see para. 44, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Landfill of waste – Directive 1999/31 – ‘Polluter pays’ principle

(Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 10)

2. Approximation of laws – Combating late payments in commercial transactions –Directive 2000/35 – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Arts 1, 2(1) and 3)

Summary

1. Article 10 of Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision which makes the operator of a landfill site subject to a levy to be reimbursed by the local authority depositing the waste and which provides for financial penalties to be imposed on that operator for late payment of the levy, on condition that those rules are accompanied by measures to ensure that the levy is actually reimbursed within a short time and that all the costs of recovery, and in particular, the costs resulting from late payment of amounts which that authority owes to the site operator on that account, including costs incurred in order to avoid any financial penalty which might be imposed on the site operator, are passed on in the price to be paid by the authority to that operator. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions have been satisfied.

Causing the operator to bear such charges would amount to charging to him the costs arising from the disposal of waste which he did not generate but of which he merely disposes in the framework of his activities as a provider of services.

(see paras 38, 41, operative part 1)

2. Articles 1, 2(1) and 3 of Directive 2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that the sums owed to the operator of a landfill site by a local authority depositing waste in the landfill, such as the sums due by way of reimbursement of a levy, come within the scope of that directive and that the Member States must ensure, in accordance with Article 3 thereof, that, in the case of late payment, the landfill operator may charge the local authority interest on those sums for which the local authority is liable.

(see para. 48, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects

(Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 4(7), 6(1), 7 and 8(1) and (3))

Summary

By providing for a two-stage procedure and thus aiming to guarantee swift and straightforward access to documents, Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents confers a very extensive right of access to the documents of the institutions concerned, there being, in accordance with Article 6(1) of the regulation, no requirement to state reasons for the application in order to enjoy that right. In addition, under Article 4(7) of that regulation, the exceptions as laid down in paragraphs 1 to 3 of that article are to apply only for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document. It follows that a person may make a new demand for access relating to documents to which he has previously been denied access. Such an application requires the institution concerned to examine whether the earlier refusal of access remains justified in the light of a change in the legal or factual situation which has taken place in the meantime.

A Commission measure refusing access to documents must therefore be regarded as constituting a definitive refusal where that definitive nature results both from its content, which refers explicitly to a ‘definitive position’ of the Commission, and the context in which it was adopted, that is at the end of a long series of successive steps taken by the applicant over approximately three years, including several applications, and having given rise to a case before the Ombudsman and a detailed opinion by the Commission in that context.

In such circumstances, the Commission cannot reasonably claim that, once it had received notification of the contested measure, the applicant should have made a new application and waited until that institution refused its application again before it could be regarded as a definitive measure and, thus, open to challenge. Such a step by the applicant could not have led to the result desired by it, in the light of the fact that the Commission had examined its application for access in detail and had clearly and definitively adopted its position with regard to the refusal of access to the documents sought.

To require such a step to be taken would moreover have been contrary to the stated objective of guaranteeing swift and straightforward access to the documents of the institutions concerned.

Such a refusal constitutes a measure open to challenge which could be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC. The action is therefore admissible.

(see paras 56-62)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Union law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages – Regulation No 881/2002 – Differences between the various language versions

(Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Council Regulation No 561/2003)

2. European Union – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation No 881/2002

(Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Regulation No 561/2003, Art. 2(2))

Summary

1. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of a Community text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.

For the purpose of interpreting Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, as amended by Regulation No 561/2003, account must also be taken of the wording and purpose of Resolution 1390 (2002) of the United Nations Security Council which that regulation, according to recital 4 in the preamble thereto, is designed to implement. In addition, in construing a provision of secondary European Union law, such as that regulation, preference must as far as possible be given to the interpretation that renders the provision consistent with the general principles of European Union law and, more specifically, with the principle of legal certainty. That principle requires legislation, such as Regulation No 881/2002, which imposes restrictive measures having considerable impact on the rights and freedoms of designated persons to be clear and precise so that the persons concerned, including third parties, may know unambiguously their rights and duties and take measures accordingly.

(see paras 44-45, 64-65)

2. Article 2(2) of Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, as amended by Regulation No 561/2003, must be construed as not applying to the provision by the State of social security or social assistance benefits to the spouse of a person designated by the committee created pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council of the United Nations and included in the list in Annex I to that regulation, on the grounds only that the spouse lives with that person and will or may use some of those payments to pay for goods and services which the designated person also will consume or from which he also will benefit.

It is hard to imagine how those funds could be turned into means that could be used to support terrorist activities, especially because the benefits at issue are fixed at a level intended to meet only the strictly vital needs of the persons concerned.

(see paras 61, 74, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Union law – Direct effect – Rights conferred on individuals – Protected by the national courts – National rules of procedure – Conditions under which applicable – Observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness

Summary

European Union law does not preclude legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that makes subject to a three-year limitation rule claims for payment of special length-of-service increments that a worker who had exercised his rights to freedom of movement was denied before the delivery of the judgment of 30 September 2003 in Case C‑224/01 Köbler , on the basis of a domestic law incompatible with Community law.

It is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to lay down such a procedural rule, provided, first, that the rule is not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, second, that it does not render in practice impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by European Union law (principle of effectiveness).

In this respect, a limitation rule cannot be regarded as being contrary to the principle of equivalence when there exists, in addition to a limitation rule applicable to actions intended to ensure that the rights derived by individuals from European Union law are safeguarded under domestic law, a limitation rule applicable to domestic actions and when, having regard to their purpose and essential characteristics, the two limitation rules may be considered similar.

As regards the principle of effectiveness, it is compatible with European Union law to lay down reasonable time-limits for bringing proceedings in the interests of legal certainty which protects both the individual and the authorities concerned. Such time-limits are not liable to make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by European Union law. In that regard, a national limitation period of three years appears to be reasonable.

That interpretation is not invalidated by the fact that the effects of the Köbler judgment date back to the time at which the rule interpreted entered into force, the effects not being limited in time by the Court. The application of a procedural rule, such as a limitation period, must not be confused with a limitation on the effects of a judgment of the Court ruling on a request for interpretation of a provision of European Union law.

Moreover, European Union Law does not prohibit a Member State from relying on a limitation period in order to resist an application for a special length-of-service increment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in breach of provisions of European Union law, was not granted, even if that Member State has not amended the national rules in order to render them compatible with those provisions. The situation will be different only if the conduct of the national authorities, in conjunction with the existence of a limitation period, had the effect of depriving a person of any opportunity of enforcing his rights before the national courts.

(see paras 17, 20, 27-30, 33, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections with regard to an aid scheme – Scope – Elements to be taken into consideration

(Arts 87 EC and 88 EC)

2. State aid – General aid scheme approved by the Commission – Scheme excluding firms in difficulty and private firms – No explicit restrictions concerning those firms in the actual decision authorising the scheme – Legitimate expectation on the part of firms having unlawfully benefited from that aid – No such expectation

(Arts 87 EC and 88 EC)

Summary

1. The scope of a decision by which the Commission raises no objections to an aid scheme notified by a Member State must be determined not only by reference to the actual wording of that decision, only a summary of which is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities , but also by taking account of the aid scheme notified by the Member State concerned.

A request for additional information, by which the Commission requests further information on the scope of an aid scheme notified by a Member State, as well as the reply by the national authorities to that request, must be considered to be an indivisible part of the notified aid scheme. This is, a fortiori , the position when it is precisely on the basis of that information that the Commission decided not to raise objections to the aid scheme in question.

(see paras 44-45)

2. The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applies to any individual in a situation in which an institution of the Union, by giving that person precise assurances, has led him to entertain well-founded expectations. Such assurances, in whatever form they are given, are constituted by precise, unconditional and consistent information.

In the context of an authorised aid scheme, the fact that a Commission decision not to raise objections against the scheme contains no explicit restrictions as regards firms in difficulty and private undertakings cannot, by definition, be deemed to constitute precise, unconditional and consistent information provided by the Commission to the interested person with regard to the fact that that scheme allowed the award of grants to such firms and undertakings and cannot therefore give rise to any legitimate expectation on the part of that person that the grants which were awarded to it were lawful. Quite the contrary, given that it was at the very least uncertain that aid could be granted to those firms, the lack of any explicit restriction could not thus be the source of precise assurances capable of giving rise to any legitimate expectation on the part of the interested person.

(see paras 63-66)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑87/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/73/EC – Measures implementing Directive 2004/39/EC – Organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period

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. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive (OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Assessment of whether a particular grant of aid is compatible with the common market – Excluded

(Art. 234 EC)

2. State aid – Definition – Tax advantages granted to producers’ and workers’ cooperatives – Included – Conditions

(Art. 87(1) EC)

Summary

1. Although the Court may not, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, rule upon the compatibility of a provision of domestic law with Union law or interpret domestic legislation or regulations, it may nevertheless provide the national court with an interpretation of Union law on all such points as may enable that court to determine the issue of compatibility for the purposes of the case before it.

In particular, the Commission’s powers for the purpose of determining whether aid is compatible with the common market do not preclude a national court from referring to the Court of Justice a question on the interpretation of the concept of aid. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction, inter alia, to give the national court guidance on interpretation of Union law to enable it to determine whether a national measure may be classified as State aid under that law.

(see paras 34-35)

2. Tax exemptions granted to producers’ and workers’ cooperative societies under national legislation conferring certain tax benefits constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC only in so far as all the requirements for the application of that provision are met, namely: (i) the financing of the measure by the State or through State resources; (ii) the selectivity of that measure, and; (iii) the effect of that measure on trade between Member States and the distortion of competition resulting from the measure. In the present case, it is for the referring court to determine in particular whether the tax exemptions granted to producers’ and workers’ cooperative societies are selective and whether they can be justified by the nature or general scheme of the national tax system of which they form part, by establishing in particular whether the cooperative societies in question are in fact in a comparable situation to that of other operators in the form of profit‑making legal entities and, if that is indeed the case, whether the more advantageous tax treatment enjoyed by those cooperative societies, first, forms an inherent part of the essential principles of the tax system applicable in the Member State concerned and, second, is consistent with the principles of consistency and proportionality.

(see paras 43, 82, operative part)