ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C‑431/14 P

Hellenic Republic

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — State aid — Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of evidence’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 8 March 2016

State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Discretion of the Commission — Criteria for assessment — Guidelines adopted by the Commission — Temporary Framework for aid measures to support access to finance in the economic crisis — Binding effect

State aid — Concept — Compensation aid for losses suffered by farmers because of adverse weather conditions separate from their insurance contributions and financed by means of a loan contracted by an organisation owned by the State — Included

Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

Where an appellant alleges distortion of the evidence by the General Court, he must, under Article 256 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 168(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted by the General Court and show the errors of appraisal which, in his view, led to such distortion. In addition, it is settled case-law of the Court that distortion must be obvious from the documents in the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence. (see paras 32, 34)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 38, 57)

Payments, on an exceptional basis, of compensation aid for losses suffered by farmers because of adverse weather conditions that are independent of the contributions paid by farmers under crop and animal production insurance and that are financed by means of a loan contracted by an agricultural insurance organisation wholly owned by the State constitute an advantage that the beneficiary undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions, and therefore affect competition. In view of the independence of the contributions paid by the farmers in relation to the compensation aid received by them, those contributions cannot be regarded as specific charges imposed on the advantage consisting, in the present case, of the payment of that aid; nor can those contributions be regarded as connected with the introduction of that advantage. Therefore, the advantage and those contributions cannot be offset. (see paras 42, 43)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 55)
Council Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts precludes legislation of a Member State which does not permit the court ruling on the enforcement of an order for payment to assess of its own motion whether a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, when the authority hearing the application for an order for payment does not have the power to make such an assessment.

If the progress and particular features of the order for payment proceedings are such that, in the absence of facts requiring the intervention of the court, those proceedings are closed without it being possible for there to be a check as to whether there are unfair terms in a contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer and if, accordingly, the court hearing the enforcement of the order for payment does not have the power to assess of its own motion whether such terms are present, the consumer could be faced with an enforcement order without having the benefit, at any time during the proceedings, of a guarantee that such an assessment will be made. Such legislation is liable to undermine the effectiveness of the protection of the rights under Directive 93/13. Effective protection of those rights can be guaranteed only provided that the procedural system of a Member State allows the court, during order for payment proceedings or enforcement proceedings concerning an order for payment, to check of its own motion whether terms in a contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer are unfair.

That finding cannot be called into question where the national procedural law of a Member State confers on a decision issued by the authority hearing an application for an order for payment the force of res judicata and endows it with effects analogous to those of a court decision. Such rules, implementing the principle of res judicata in the context of the order for payment procedure, appear to run counter to the principle of effectiveness, in so far as they make it impossible or excessively difficult, in proceedings brought by suppliers or sellers and in which consumers are the defendants, to ensure the protection conferred on the consumers by Directive 93/13.

(see paras 40, 41, 43, 45-47, 48, 54, 55, operative part)
Case C‑294/14

ADM Hamburg AG

v

Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Community Customs Code — Tariff Preferences — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 74(1) — Products originating from a beneficiary country — Transport — Consignments composed of a mixture of crude palm kernel oil originating in several countries benefiting from the same preferential treatment’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 7 April 2016

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — System of generalised tariff preferences for developing countries — Origin of goods — Determination — Importation in the form of a mixture of consignments of crude palm kernel oil originating in several countries benefiting from the same preferential treatment — Grant of preferential treatment — Conditions

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1063/2010, Art. 74(1))

Article 74(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 1063/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where valid certificates of origin have been presented, the preferential origin, within the meaning of the generalised system of preferences established by Regulation No 732/2008, of consignments of crude palm kernel oil may be recognised even where those products have been mixed in the tank of a vessel at the time of their transport to the European Union in circumstances where it is possible to rule out that other products, in particular products not benefiting from any preferential treatment, have been added to that tank.

The creation of a mixture of several products originating in developing countries benefiting from the generalised system of preferences granted by the European Union under its scheme for generalised preferential tariffs introduced by Regulation No 732/2008, at the time of transport, which does not alter the substance of those products and which does not create uncertainty as to the origin of those products, cannot be classified as an alteration, transformation or operation precluding the origin of those products from being recognised in the framework established, inter alia, by Article 74(1) of Regulation No 2454/93.

(see paras 30, 35, operative part)
Case C‑558/14

Mimoun Khachab

v

Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 7(1)(c) — Family reunification — Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification — Stable and regular resources which are sufficient — National legislation permitting a prospective assessment of the likelihood that the sponsor will retain his resources — Compatibility’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 21 April 2016

Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86 — Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification — Stable and regular resources which are sufficient — National legislation permitting a prospective assessment of the likelihood that the sponsor will retain his resources — Lawfulness

(Council Directive 2003/86, Art. 3(1), 7(1)(c) and 16(1)(a))

Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as allowing the competent authorities of a Member State to refuse an application for family reunification on the basis of a prospective assessment of the likelihood of the sponsor retaining, or failing to retain, the necessary stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, without recourse to the social assistance system of that Member State, in the year following the date of submission of that application, that assessment being based on the pattern of the sponsor’s income in the six months preceding that date.

The assessment of whether reasonable prospects of obtaining the right of permanent residence exist for the purposes of Article 3(1) of that directive necessarily requires the competent authority of the Member State concerned to carry out an examination of future developments in the sponsor’s situation in relation to the obtaining of that right of residence.

In addition, according to Article 16(1)(a) of that directive, the competent authority of the Member State concerned may, inter alia, withdraw an authorisation of family reunification where the sponsor no longer has stable and regular resources which are sufficient, as referred to in Article 7(1)(c). The fact that it is possible to withdraw that authorisation means that that authority may require the sponsor to have such resources beyond the date of submission of his application.

Regarding the setting of the length of the period prior to the submission of the application on which the prospective assessment of the sponsor’s resources may be based at six months, it should be noted that Directive 2003/86 is silent on that point. In any event, such a period is not capable of undermining the objective of that directive.

(see paras 35, 38, 47, 48, operative part)
Clause 6(1) of the Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave, which is annexed to Directive 2010/18 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC, and which governs situations of return to work following parental leave, cannot be interpreted as also covering a situation in which a worker returns from 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.

EU law makes a distinction between the notion of ‘maternity leave’, as referred to, in particular, in Directive 92/85, and that of ‘parental leave’, as used in the revised Framework Agreement, and that paragraph 15 of the general considerations of that agreement states expressly, moreover, that the agreement sets out minimum requirements and provisions for parental leave, ‘distinct from maternity leave’.

Parental leave is granted to parents to enable them to take care of their child and may be taken until the child has reached a given age up to 8 years. Maternity leave has a different purpose. It is intended to protect a woman’s biological condition and the special relationship between a woman and her child over the period which follows pregnancy and childbirth, by preventing that relationship from being disturbed by the multiple burdens which would result from the simultaneous pursuit of employment.

(see paras 43, 44, 48)
Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Regulation No 2083/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority is not authorised to require, by a stipulation in the tender specifications of a public works contract, that the future contractor of that contract perform with its own resources a certain percentage of the works covered by that contract.

First, Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18 provides for the possibility, for tenderers, to use subcontractors for the performance of a contract, and that in a way which is, in principle, unlimited. Secondly, where the procurement documents require tenderers to indicate, in their tenders, the share of the contract they may intend to subcontract and the proposed subcontractors, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 25 of Directive 2004/18, the contracting authority is entitled to prohibit use of subcontractors whose capacities could not be verified at the level of examination of tenders and selection of the contractor, for the performance of essential parts of the contract. Such is not however the effect of a stipulation, which imposes limitations on the use of subcontractors for a share of the contract fixed in abstract terms as a certain percentage of that contract, and that irrespective of the possibility of verifying the capacities of potential subcontractors and without any mention of the essential character of the tasks which would be concerned. In all those respects, such a stipulation is incompatible with Directive 2004/18.

Moreover, such a stipulation, assuming it constitutes a condition for the performance of the contract for the purposes of Article 26 of Directive 2004/18, cannot be accepted under that article, by reason of the very terms thereof, since it is contrary to Article 48(3) of that directive, and thus is contrary to EU law.

(see paras 33-37, operative part 1)
Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which is interpreted in such a way as to oblige the referring court to disqualify itself from a case pending before the Court, on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case.

In setting out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of the main proceedings, a referring court is doing no more than meeting the requirements of Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure. That being the case, where that referring court presents, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the relevant factual and legal context of the main proceedings, that is a response to the requirement of cooperation that is inherent in the preliminary reference mechanism and cannot, in itself, be a breach of either the right to a fair trial, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, or the right to the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 48(1) of the Charter. In that regard, the effect of a national rule according to which, where a national court sets out, in a request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of the case at issue, that constitutes an example of bias, is likely to be that the national court may choose to refrain from referring questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court, in order to avoid, on the one hand, being disqualified and exposed to disciplinary penalties or, on the other, lodging requests for preliminary rulings that are inadmissible. Consequently, such a rule is detrimental to the prerogatives granted to national courts and tribunals by Article 267 TFEU and, consequently, to the effectiveness of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts and tribunals established by the preliminary ruling mechanism.

(see paras 22, 23, 25, 26, operative part 1)
Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’ covers the compensation that the employer must pay to an employee on account of the termination of his fixed-term employment contract.

The decisive criterion for determining whether a measure falls within the scope of that concept is, precisely, the criterion of employment, that is to say the employment relationship between a worker and his employer.

Furthermore, an interpretation of clause 4(1) of the framework agreement which excludes from the concept of employment conditions, within the meaning of that provision, conditions relating to termination of a fixed-term employment contract would limit the scope of the protection granted to fixed-term workers against discrimination, in disregard of the objective assigned to that provision.

Given that the compensation at issue is paid to the worker on account of the termination of his contract of employment with his employer and that such compensation met the criterion set out above, it is therefore covered by the concept of employment conditions.

(see paras 28, 30-32, operative part 1)
Appeal—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 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 62, 65, 77, 118)
23

It was in those circumstances that the Vrhovno sodišče decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Having regard to circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, on a proper construction of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, does the return of immovable property that is the subject-matter of a lease agreement, as a result of the lessee’s failure to perform its obligations in full, into the possession of the lessor for the purposes of its subsequent sale and performance of the other obligations under the lease agreement, once all the payment instalments under the lease have fallen due, constitute a case of “cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment” after the supply has taken place, in consequence of which the taxable amount is to be reduced accordingly? (2) On a proper construction of Articles 2(1), 14 and 24(1) of the VAT Directive, must the financial consideration relating to two purchase options be regarded as consideration for the performance of the agreement and as a supply of goods and, as such, subject to VAT, when it represents a substantial part of the total amount due under lease agreements and is paid by the lessee to the lessor in such a way that, as a result of the failure in part to perform obligations, the lessor regains possession of the subject-matter of the lease agreement, sells it to a third party and pays the surplus proceeds of the sale to the lessee after deducting, in the final account, the sum relating to the purchase options, or must it be regarded as consideration for the service of the rent of, or for the use of, the property (and, as such, subject to VAT, or at the option of the taxable persons), or must it rather be regarded as compensation for damage for the termination of the agreement, paid in order to make good the loss caused by the lessee’s failure to perform and having no direct connection with any provision of services for consideration and, as such, not subject to VAT? (3) If the answer to the second question is that the sum in question is to be regarded as consideration for the supply of goods and performance of the agreement, does the principle of the neutrality of VAT preclude a lessor’s having to pay output VAT twice, that is to say, once upon conclusion of the lease agreements (including in respect of the purchase options, which represented the greater part of the contract value) and, as a result of the lessee’s failure to fulfil its obligations in full, a second time, on the subsequent sale of the immovable property in question to a third party, even though the liability to pay VAT on the second supply has been passed on to the lessee in the final account?’
4

The press release is worded as follows: ‘As announced on 2 August 2012, the [Governing Council] has today taken decisions on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s [OMTs] in secondary sovereign bond markets that aim at safeguarding an appropriate monetary policy transmission and the singleness of the monetary policy. These will be known as [OMTs] and will be conducted within the following framework: Conditionality A necessary condition for [OMTs] is strict and effective conditionality attached to an appropriate European Financial Stability Facility/European Stability Mechanism (EFSF/ESM) programme. Such programmes can take the form of a full EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programme or a precautionary programme (Enhanced Conditions Credit Line), provided that they include the possibility of EFSF/ESM primary market purchases. The involvement of the IMF shall also be sought for the design of the country-specific conditionality and the monitoring of such a programme. The Governing Council will consider [OMTs] to the extent that they are warranted from a monetary policy perspective as long as programme conditionality is fully respected, and terminate them once their objectives are achieved or when there is non-compliance with the macroeconomic adjustment or precautionary programme. Following a thorough assessment, the Governing Council will decide on the start, continuation and suspension of [OMTs] in full discretion and acting in accordance with its monetary policy mandate. Coverage [OMTs] will be considered for future cases of EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programmes or precautionary programmes as specified above. They may also be considered for Member States currently under a macroeconomic adjustment programme when they will be regaining bond market access. Transactions will be focused on the shorter part of the yield curve, and in particular on sovereign bonds with a maturity of between one and three years. No ex ante quantitative limits are set on the size of [OMTs]. Creditor treatment The Eurosystem intends to clarify in the legal act concerning [OMTs] that it accepts the same (pari passu) treatment as private or other creditors with respect to bonds issued by euro area countries and purchased by the Eurosystem through [OMTs], in accordance with the terms of such bonds. Sterilisation The liquidity created through [OMTs] will be fully sterilised. Transparency Aggregate [OMT] holdings and their market values will be published on a weekly basis. Publication of the average duration of [OMT] holdings and the breakdown by country will take place on a monthly basis. Securities Markets Programme Following today’s decision on [OMTs], the Securities Markets Programme (SMP) is herewith terminated. The liquidity injected through the SMP will continue to be absorbed as in the past, and the existing securities in the SMP portfolio will be held to maturity.’