ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements — Community agreements — Direct effect — Article 23(1) of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement

(Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement, Art. 23(1))

2. International agreements — Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement — Workers — Equal treatment — Working conditions — Rule drawn up by a sports federation of a Member State which limits the number of professional players from non-member countries who may take part in national competitions — Not permissible

(Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement, Art. 23(1))

Summary

1. Inasmuch as it lays down, in clear, precise and unconditional terms, a prohibition precluding any Member State from discriminating, on grounds of nationality, against Russian workers, vis-à-vis that State’s own nationals, so far as their conditions of employment, remuneration and dismissal are concerned, Article 23(1) of the Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, has direct effect, with the result that individuals to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on it before the courts of the Member States.

(see paras 22, 29)

2. Article 23(1) of the Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, precludes the application to a professional sportsman of Russian nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established in a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation of that State which provides that clubs may field in competitions organised at national level only a limited number of players from countries which are not parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

(see para. 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Identification of the subject-matter of the question

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Taxable person carrying out both transactions giving right to deduct and transactions not giving right to deduct – Deductible proportion – Calculation – Value of transactions not yet performed – Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 19)

Summary

1. Although the Court has no jurisdiction under Article 234 EC to apply a rule of Community law to a particular case and thus to judge a provision of national law by reference to such a rule it may, in the framework of the judicial cooperation provided for by that article, and on the basis of the material presented to it, provide a national court with an interpretation of Community law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of that provision.

However, if questions have been improperly formulated or go beyond the scope of the powers conferred on it by Article 234 EC, the Court is free to extract from all the factors provided by the national court, and in particular from the statement of the grounds contained in the reference, the elements of Community law requiring an interpretation having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute.

(see paras 15-16)

2. It is contrary to Article 19 of Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, concerning the calculation of the deductible proportion where a taxable person carries out both transactions giving the right to deduct and transactions not giving the right to deduct, to include, in the denominator of the fraction making that calculation possible, the value of work in progress carried out by a taxable person in the course of civil construction activity subject to tax, where that value does not correspond to the supply of goods or the provision of services which has already been effected by the taxable person or which has given rise to statements of account of work and/or the receipt of payments on account.

It is contrary to the system under the Sixth Directive to allow the determination of the extent of deduction to take into account transactions not yet performed and which may never in fact take place, whilst in that system the chargeable event for the tax, and as a result the right to deduct, depend on a transaction’s having actually been carried out.

(see paras 26-27, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Inaccurate declaration — Sanction — Principle of proportionality — Breach — None

(Commission Regulations No 3665/87, Art. 11(1), first subpara.,(a))

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Products for further processing not covered by Annex II to the Treaty — Inaccurate declaration — Goods exported incorporating a product other than that declared — Product capable of being assimilated to one of those listed in Annex A to Regulation No 1222/94 — Entitlement to the grant of an export refund

(Commission Regulations No 1222/94, Art. 7(1), first subpara., (2), first subpara., and (5), and No 3665/87, Art. 11(1))

Summary

1. The sanction provided for in Article 11(1), first subparagraph, (a), of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, applied to an exporter who, through no fault of his own, has requested a refund in excess of that applicable, does not breach the principle of proportionality since it cannot be considered to be inappropriate for attaining the objective pursued by Community law, namely to combat irregularities and fraud, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

(see para. 26)

2. The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1), the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) and Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1222/94 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, as amended by Regulation No 229/96, are to be interpreted as meaning that where an exporter has declared in a request for an export refund that, in the production of the exported goods, a product was used which, by virtue of Article 1(2) of that regulation, is assimilated to the skimmed milk powder described in Annex A (PG 2), whereas in fact another product was used which, by virtue of the same provision, is also assimilated to the same skimmed milk powder, he is entitled to the grant of an export refund, corrected if appropriate in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94.

(see para. 27, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure disallowed owing to incorrect application of Community rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Divided between the Commission and the Member State

(Council Regulation No 729/70)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure disallowed owing to incorrect application of Community rules — Financial adjustment — Conditions — Existence of a significant failing exposing the EAGGF to a genuine risk of loss

(Council Regulation No 729/70)

Summary

1. With regard to the financing of the common agricultural policy by the EAGGF, although it is for the Commission, when it intends to exclude certain expenditure from Community financing, to prove that Community rules have been infringed, it is not required to prove that there has been a loss or to demonstrate exhaustively that the checks carried out by the national authorities are inadequate, or that the data submitted by them are incorrect, but may simply adduce sound evidence of such loss or evidence of serious and reasonable doubt on its part regarding the checks or data.

Once the Commission has presented such evidence, it is for the Member State to demonstrate, if appropriate, that the Commission made an error with regard to the financial consequences to be attached to it. The Member State cannot rebut the Commission’s findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. It is for that State to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its checks or its figures are accurate and, if appropriate, that the Commission’s assertions are incorrect.

The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission lies in the division of powers between the Community and the Member States concerning the common agricultural policy and in the fact that the management of EAGGF finances is principally in the hands of the national administrative authorities responsible for ensuring that the Community rules are strictly observed.

(see paras 36, 38-40, 46-47, 62, 75, 79)

2. With regard to the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF, the fact that a procedure is open to improvement does not in itself justify a financial adjustment. There must be a significant failing in the application of express Community rules and such a failing must expose the EAGGF to a genuine risk of loss or irregularity.

(see para. 51)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Wealth tax — National legislation denying non-resident taxpayers entitlement to the allowances granted to resident taxpayers — Whether permissible — Condition

(Arts 56 EC and 58 EC)

2. Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Bilateral double taxation convention —Personal allowances granted only to residents of the Member States which are parties to the convention — Whether permissible

(Arts 56 EC and 58 EC)

Summary

1. Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude tax legislation imposing a wealth tax which denies non-resident taxpayers who hold the major part of their wealth in the State where they are resident entitlement to the allowances granted to resident taxpayers.

Taxpayers who hold only a minor part of their wealth in a Member State other than the State where they are resident are not, as a rule, in a situation comparable to that of residents of that other Member State, inasmuch as not only the major part of the latters’ income but also the major part of their wealth is normally concentrated in the State where they are resident. That Member State is consequently best placed to take account of residents’ overall ability to pay by granting them, where appropriate, the allowances prescribed by its legislation. Accordingly, the refusal of the authorities concerned to grant non-residents the allowance to which residents are entitled does not discriminate against them.

(see paras 37-38, 43, operative part 1)

2. Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude a rule laid down by a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation which states that natural persons resident in one of the two States are entitled in the other to the personal allowances which are granted by it to its own residents from not being extended to residents of a Member State which is not party to that convention.

The fact that the reciprocal rights and obligations flowing from such a convention apply only to persons resident in one of the two Contracting Member States is an inherent consequence of bilateral double taxation conventions.

(see paras 60-61, 63, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Ten-year limitation period of Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 – Interruption of the limitation period – Need to inform the beneficiary of the aid of an interrupting action – None

(Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 15)

Summary

Article 15(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, in accordance with which the limitation period to which the powers of the Commission to recover unlawful aid are subject is interrupted by any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid, cannot mean, either having regard to its wording or its purpose, that a request for information addressed by the Commission to the Member State concerned constitutes ‘action taken by the Commission’ only provided it has been notified to the beneficiary of the aid.

It is true that the beneficiary of the aid has a practical interest in being informed of action taken by the Commission which is capable of interrupting the limitation period, but that interest cannot have the effect of making the application of the provision cited above subject to the requirement that that action be notified to it. Even if the status of party could justify such a requirement, the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC takes place primarily between the Commission and the Member State concerned and is initiated against that State and not against the beneficiaries which, although they have certain procedural rights, do not have the status of a party to the procedure.

(see paras 27-35)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope – Cross-border mergers – Included

(Art. 43 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – National provision preventing registration of cross-border mergers in the national commercial register – Restriction on the freedom of establishment – Justification – Conditions

(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)

Summary

1. The right of establishment covers all measures which permit or even merely facilitate access to another Member State and the pursuit of an economic activity in that State by allowing the persons concerned to participate in the economic life of the country effectively and under the same conditions as national operators.

Cross-border merger operations, like other company transformation operations, respond to the needs for cooperation and consolidation between companies established in different Member States. They constitute particular methods of exercise of the freedom of establishment, important for the proper functioning of the internal market, and are therefore amongst those economic activities in respect of which Member States are required to comply with the freedom of establishment laid down by Article 43 EC.

(see paras 18-19)

2. Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude registration in the national commercial register of the merger by dissolution without liquidation of one company and transfer of the whole of its assets to another company from being refused in general in a Member State where one of the two companies is established in another Member State, whereas such registration is possible, on compliance with certain conditions, where the two companies participating in the merger are both established in the territory of the first Member State.

Such a difference in treatment can be permitted only if it pursues a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and is justified by imperative reasons in the public interest, such as protection of the interests of creditors, minority shareholders and employees, and the preservation of the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the fairness of commercial transactions. Furthermore, application of such a difference in treatment must be appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued and not go beyond what is necessary to attain them.

(see paras 23, 28, 31, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment

(EEC Treaty, Art. 48 (subsequently Art. 48 EC, now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC))

Summary

Article 48 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 48 of the EC Treaty and now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not permit natural persons in receipt of income from employment in one Member State, and assessable to tax on their total income there, to have income losses relating to their own use of a private dwelling in another Member State taken into account for the purposes of determining the rate of taxation applicable to their income in the former State, whereas positive rental income relating to such a dwelling is taken into account.

(see para. 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Decision given by reasoned order – Application of measures of organisation of procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts. 64 and 111)

Summary

Since the purpose of the measures of organisation of procedure envisaged in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance is to ensure, as provided in that article, that cases are prepared for hearing, procedures carried out and disputes resolved under the best possible conditions, the application of such measures is not, in itself, capable of precluding an order from being adopted under Article 111 of those rules.

(see para. 30)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Exclusive jurisdiction – Proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 16(4))

Summary

Article 16(4) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as last amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection. First, to allow a court seised of the main action relating to a patent, such as an action for infringement or for a declaration that there has been no infringement, to establish, indirectly, the invalidity of the patent at issue would undermine the binding nature of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in that article and would circumvent its mandatory nature. Second, the possibility which this offers would have the effect of multiplying the heads of jurisdiction and would be liable to undermine the predictability of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Convention, and consequently to undermine the principle of legal certainty, which is the basis of the Convention. Finally, to allow, within the scheme of the Convention, decisions in which courts other than those of a State in which a particular patent is issued rule indirectly on the validity of that patent would also multiply the risk of conflicting decisions which the Convention seeks specifically to avoid.

(see paras 26-29, 31, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Choice of legal basis – Criteria – Article 308 EC – Limits

(Art. 95 EC and 308 EC; Council Regulation No 1435/2003)

Summary

The appropriate legal basis on which an act must be adopted should be determined according to its content and main object.

In that regard, Article 308 EC may be used as the legal basis for a measure only where no other provision of the Treaty gives the Community institutions the necessary power to adopt it. Article 95 EC empowers the Community legislature to adopt measures to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market and they must genuinely have that object, contributing to the elimination of obstacles to the economic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, which include the freedom of establishment. Recourse that article as a legal basis is also possible if the aim is to prevent the emergence of obstacles to trade resulting from heterogeneous development of national laws; the emergence of such obstacles must, however, be likely and the measure in question must be designed to prevent them.

Regulation No 1435/2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE) aims to introduce a new legal form in addition to the national forms of cooperative societies, since the SCE must be considered to be a European legal form for cooperative societies which has specific Community character. The legal form of the SCE is governed first and foremost by that regulation, the conditions of its formation are specific to that form of society, and the possibility of transferring its registered office from one Member State to another, without that resulting in the winding-up of the SCE or in the creation of a new legal person is also specific to the SCE. In addition, the European cooperative society is a form which coexists with cooperative societies under national law.

In those circumstances, that regulation, which leaves unchanged the different national laws already in existence, cannot be regarded as aiming to approximate the laws of the Member States applicable to cooperative societies. Consequently, Article 95 EC could not constitute an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of the regulation, which was thus correctly adopted on the basis of Article 308 EC.

(see paras 35-36, 38-44, 46)
Case C-29/03





Commission of the European Communities

v

Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)





«(Arbitration clause – Non-performance of contract – Recovery of moneys advanced – Procedure in default)»

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 16 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Reference to the Court pursuant to an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 25-35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application to set aside the judgment of the Court of 24 February 2005 in Case C‑279/03 Commission v Implants

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application by Implants (International) Ltd to set aside the judgment in Case C-279/03 Commission v Implants ;

2. Orders Implants (International) Ltd to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

30 March 2004

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Disposal of waste oils – Failure to transpose Directive 75/439/EEC) In Case C-201/03, Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant, v Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Kruse, acting as Agent, defendant, APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the necessary measures under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43), to ensure that priority is given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,



THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),



composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,

Registrar: R. Grass, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

1) Declares that by failing to take the necessary measures under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, to ensure that priority is given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2) Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Gulmann von Bahr Silva de Lapuerta

R. Grass C. Gulmann