ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The mere fact that the General Court finds that a plea relied on in support of an action for annulment is well founded does not automatically enable it to annul the contested measure in its entirety. Annulment of the measure in its entirety is not acceptable where it is obvious that, being directed only at a specific part of the contested measure, that plea can provide a basis only for partial annulment. However, partial annulment of an act of EU law is possible only if the elements which it is sought to have annulled can be severed from the remainder of the measure. That requirement is not satisfied where the partial annulment of a measure would cause the substance of that measure to be altered, a point which must be determined on the basis of an objective criterion and not of a subjective criterion linked to the political intention of the authority which adopted the measure at issue

A Commission decision categorising a global cartel as a single and continuous infringement can be divided in the manner referred to only if the applicant undertaking has been put in a position, during the administrative procedure, to understand that it is also alleged to have engaged in each of the forms of conduct comprising that infringement, hence to defend itself on that point, and only if the decision is sufficiently clear in that regard. It follows that, if a Court of the European Union finds that the Commission has not proved to the requisite legal standard that, when participating in one of the forms of anti-competitive conduct comprising a single and continuous infringement, the undertaking was aware of the other anti-competitive conduct adopted by the other participants in the cartel in pursuit of the same objectives or could reasonably have foreseen that conduct and was prepared to take the risk, the only inference which that Court must draw is that the undertaking may not be attributed liability for that other conduct and, in consequence, may not be attributed liability for the single and continuous infringement as a whole, and, to that extent alone, the contested decision must be held to be unfounded.

In such circumstances, the General Court errs in law when it annuls, in its entirety, a Commission decision categorising a global cartel as a single and continuous infringement in respect of an undertaking, while not calling in question that the latter has participated in part of the cartel or the fact that that participation may in itself constitute an infringement of Article 81 EC.

(see paras 37, 38, 46, 47, 54)
Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding a national court from ordering the cessation of a commercial practice not covered by Annex I to that directive on the sole ground that the practice has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the competent administrative authority, without itself carrying out an assessment of the unfairness of the practice in question against the criteria set out in Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.

National legislation which provides for the anticipatory or preventive review of unfair commercial practices may indeed be reconciled with the system established by Directive 2005/29, but that legislation cannot prohibit such a commercial practice on the sole ground that prior authorisation has not been granted by the competent authority. First, such legislation would exclude a review of such commercial practices and, secondly, by providing for review subsequent to the prohibition laid down for failure to comply with the prior authorisation requirement, the legislation would deprive the practice, because of its nature and in particular because of the time factor involved, of economic sense for the trader. Such national legislation would thus amount to enacting a general prohibition of the commercial practices made use of in a particular system even though the possible unfairness of those practices has not even been assessed against the criteria set out in Articles 5 to 9 of the directive.

(see paras 45-50, operative part)
Case C-424/11

Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others

v

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber))

‛Value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope — Occupational retirement pension schemes’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 7 March 2013

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Management of special investment funds — Meaning — Management of an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme — Not included — Conditions

(Council Directives 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(6), and 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(g))

Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and Article 135(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme is not a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of those provisions, management of which may be exempted from value added tax in the light of the objective of those directives and the principle of fiscal neutrality, where the members of the scheme do not bear the risk arising from the management of the fund and the contributions which the employer pays into the scheme are a means by which he complies with his legal obligations towards his employees.

(see para. 29, operative part)

Case C-424/11

Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others

v

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber))

‛Value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope — Occupational retirement pension schemes’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 7 March 2013

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Management of special investment funds — Meaning — Management of an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme — Not included — Conditions

(Council Directives 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(6), and 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(g))

Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and Article 135(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme is not a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of those provisions, management of which may be exempted from value added tax in the light of the objective of those directives and the principle of fiscal neutrality, where the members of the scheme do not bear the risk arising from the management of the fund and the contributions which the employer pays into the scheme are a means by which he complies with his legal obligations towards his employees.

(see para. 29, operative part)
Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ includes an action for recovery of an amount unduly paid in the case where a public body is required, by an authority established by a law providing compensation in respect of acts of persecution carried out by a totalitarian regime, to pay to a victim, by way of compensation, part of the proceeds of the sale of land, has, as the result of an unintentional error, paid to that person the entire sale price, and subsequently brings legal proceedings seeking to recover the amount unduly paid.

Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that there is a close connection, within the meaning of that provision, between claims lodged against several defendants domiciled in other Member States in the case where the latter, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rely on rights to additional compensation which it is necessary to determine on a uniform basis.

Even if the legal basis relied on in support of the claim against a defendant is different from that on which the action against the other defendants is based, the need to give a ruling on a uniform basis exists where the claims relied on in the various actions are all directed at the same interest.

It does not appear from the wording of Article 6(1) of that regulation that there is a requirement for the application of that provision that the legal bases of the actions brought against the various defendants is the same. Such identity is only one relevant factor among others.

(see paras 44, 47, 48, operative part 2)
In order to decide which court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a specific action brought against the Community seeking compensation for damage, it is necessary to determine whether the action in question concerns the Community’s contractual liability or its non-contractual liability.

In that respect, the concept of non-contractual liability, within the meaning of Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, which is of an autonomous character, must be interpreted in the light of its purpose, namely that of allowing an allocation of jurisdiction between the Community Courts and the national courts. In that context, when hearing an action for compensation, the Community Courts must, before ruling on the substance of the dispute, as a preliminary issue determine their jurisdiction by carrying out an analysis to establish the character of the liability invoked and thus the very nature of the dispute in question.

In doing that, the Community Courts cannot base their reasoning simply on the rules alleged by the parties. They are required to verify whether the action for compensation before them has as its subject-matter a claim for damages based objectively and overall on rights and obligations of a contractual nature or of a non-contractual nature. For those purposes, those Courts must examine, on an analysis of the various matters in the file, such as, for example, the rule of law allegedly infringed, the nature of the damage claimed, the conduct complained of and the legal relations between the parties in question, whether there exists between them a genuine contractual context, linked to the subject-matter of the dispute, the in-depth examination of which proves to be indispensable for the resolution of the said action.

If a preliminary analysis of those matters shows that it is necessary to interpret the content of one or more contracts concluded between the parties in question in order to establish whether the applicant’s claims are well founded, those courts are required at that point to halt their examination of the dispute and declare that they have no jurisdiction to rule thereon in the absence of an arbitration clause in the said contracts. In such circumstances, examination of the action for compensation directed against the Community would imply the assessment of rights and obligations of a contractual nature which, pursuant to Article 240 EC, cannot be removed from the jurisdiction of the national courts.

(see paras 61-64, 66, 67)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Public service contracts — Meaning — Contract for pecuniary interest — Inclusion — Conditions

(Directive 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 1(2) and Annexe IIA)

2. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Public service contracts — Meaning — Contract concluded between two public entities providing for a transfer by one entity of the responsibility for cleaning certain of its buildings to the other entity in return for financial compensation and authorising the latter to avail of the services of third parties for the accomplishment of that task — Inclusion

(Directive 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 1(2)(d))

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 28-31)

2. A contract whereby, without establishing cooperation between the contracting public entities with a view to carrying out a public service task that both of them have to perform, one public entity assigns to another the task of cleaning certain office, administrative and school buildings, while reserving the power to supervise the proper execution of that task, in return for financial compensation intended to correspond to the costs incurred in the performance of the task, the second entity being, moreover, authorised to avail of the services of third parties which might be capable of competing on the market for the accomplishment of that task, constitutes a public service contract within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

(see para. 41, operative part)
Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a national authority extends to all traders in an agricultural industry an agreement which introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that national authority, thus rendering that contribution compulsory, in order to make it possible to implement publicity activities, promotional activities, external relations activities, quality assurance activities, research activities and activities in defence of the sector’s interests, does not constitute State aid.

The national authorities cannot actually use the resources resulting from such contributions to support certain undertakings. It is the inter-trade organisation that decides how to use those resources, which are entirely dedicated to pursuing objectives determined by that organisation. Likewise, those resources are not constantly under public control and are not available to State authorities.

Moreover, the State is simply acting as a ‘vehicle’ in order to make the contributions introduced by the inter-trade organisations compulsory, for the purposes of pursuing the objectives established by those organisations. Thus, neither the State’s power to recognise an inter-trade organisation, nor its power to extend an inter trade agreement to all the traders in an industry permit the conclusion that the activities carried out by the inter-trade organisation are imputable to the State.

Lastly, private funds used by inter-trade organisations do not become State resources simply because they are used alongside sums which may originate from that budget.

(see paras 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, operative part)
Article 2(1) of Directive 84/450 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 2005/29, and Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘advertising’, as defined by those provisions, covers the use of a domain name and that of metatags in a website’s metadata in a situation where the domain name or the keyword metatags make reference to certain goods or services or to the trade name of a company and constitute a form of representation that is made to potential consumers and suggests to them that they will find a website relating to those goods or services, or relating to that company.

The term ‘advertising’, within the meaning of Directives 84/450 and 2006/114, cannot be interpreted and applied in such a way that steps taken by a trader to promote the sale of his products or services that are capable of influencing the economic behaviour of consumers and, therefore, of affecting the competitors of that trader, are not subject to the rules of fair competition imposed by those directives.

By contrast, the registration of a domain name, as such, is not encompassed by that term. It is a purely formal act which, in itself, does not necessarily imply that potential consumers can become aware of the domain name and which is therefore not capable of influencing the choice of those potential consumers

(see paras 39, 43, 48, 53, 60, operative part)
Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Exemption for lettings of immovable property — Capital goods belonging to legal persons made partly available to their managers for private use — No rent payable in money — Not permissible — Taking into account of a benefit in kind for income tax purposes under national rules — No effect

(Council Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, Arts 6,(2), first para., (a) and 13B(b))
Directive 96/34 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, provided for in a collective agreement, pursuant to which a pregnant worker who interrupts a period of unpaid parental leave within the meaning of that directive to take, with immediate effect, a maternity leave within the meaning of Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding does not benefit from the maintenance of the remuneration to which she would have been entitled had that period of maternity leave been preceded by a minimum period of resumption of work.

Firstly, although Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 92/85 does not entail an obligation to maintain in full the remuneration during the maternity leave, that directive does not in any way prevent the Member States or, where appropriate, management and labour from providing that a pregnant worker should continue to receive all the pay components to which she was entitled before her pregnancy and maternity leave. The methods of application of a system relating to the remuneration due to a worker during a period of maternity leave must be compatible with the provisions of EU law, including those relating to parental leave.

Secondly, the choice of a worker to exercise her right to parental leave should not affect the conditions on which she may exercise her right to take a different form of leave, in this case maternity leave. A condition relating to a minimum period of resumption of work undermines the effectiveness of Directive 96/34, since it has the effect of dissuading a worker from deciding to exercise her right to parental leave, having regard to the effect which that decision could have on a period of maternity leave which interrupts that parental leave, such as the loss of part of her remuneration.

(see paras 36, 37, 47, 48, 51, 52, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

—

Telecommunications sector

—

Electronic communications networks and services

—

Authorisation

—

Directive 2002/20

—

Article 12

—

Scope

—

Tax with a chargeable event linked to the general authorisation procedure or to the grant of a right of use of radiofrequencies or numbers

—

Included

—

Tax with a chargeable event linked to the operator’s activity of providing electronic communications services to final users in the Member State concerned

—

Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/20, Art. 12) (see paras 26, 29-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) – Charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations – Compatibility of national legislation introducing an additional charge on electronic telecommunications operators.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and Hungary to bear their own costs.
By virtue of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission must, in any application made under Article 260 TFEU, indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is asked to rule and, at the very least in summary form, the legal and factual particulars on which those complaints are based.

However, the requirement for precision and coherence in the application instituting the proceedings cannot mean that the Commission is required, when bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations relating to the adoption of measures necessary to comply with a judgment having found a failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligation to recover unlawful aid, to state in its application the exact amount of aid to be recovered under a certain decision or, a fortiori, from each recipient under an aid scheme declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market.

Where compliance with decisions relating to aid schemes is concerned, it is for the authorities of the Member State involved to verify, at the stage of recovery of the aid, the individual situation of each undertaking concerned, given that those authorities are in the best position to determine the exact amounts to be repaid. It follows therefrom that the Commission may, during an aid recovery proceeding, merely insist that the obligation to repay the amounts of aid at issue be fulfilled and leave the national authorities to calculate the exact amount of the sums to be recovered.

(see paras 20, 22, 23)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2012 — Commission v France

(Case C‑119/11)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 99 and 110 — Value added tax — Reduced rate — Application of a reduced rate for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing refreshments during the performance

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Member States entitled to apply a reduced rate as a transitional measure — Reintroduction of a reduced rate of 2.10% for revenue from admission to first performances of concerts given in establishments in which refreshments are served on request during the performance — Not permissible (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 99 and 110) (see paras 30, 32, 37, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 99 and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Application of a reduced rate of VAT of 2.10% for admission to the first performances of concerts given in establishments serving refreshments during the performance — Prohibition of extending the scope of an original derogation after reducing its ambit.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying, since 1 January 2007, a reduced rate of value added tax of 2.10% to revenue from admission to the first performances of concerts given in establishments in which refreshments are served on request during the performance, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 99 and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;