ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Freedom of establishment ° Free movement of services ° Hairdressers ° Member State requiring its own nationals who have been trained in that State to satisfy stricter rules for the pursuit of an occupation than those applicable to nationals from other Member States ° Permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 52 and 59; Council Directive 82/489)

Summary

Since the Treaty provisions on the freedom of movement for persons cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State, and Directive 82/489 laying down measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services in hairdressing does not aim to harmonize the conditions laid down by national rules for access to the occupation of hairdresser and the pursuit of that occupation, Community law does not preclude national rules whereby a Member State requires its own nationals who have received their training in that State to hold a diploma in order to operate a hairdressing salon, while permitting hairdressers who are nationals of other Member States to operate a hairdressing salon without holding such a diploma and without being obliged to entrust its operation to a manager holding that diploma providing they satisfy certain conditions as to the prior pursuit of that occupation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Wine ° Description and presentation of wine °

Labelling ° Definition ° Affixing of decoration unconnected with the wine marketed ° Included

(Council Regulation No 2392/89, Art. 38(1))

Summary

The definition of "labelling" in Article 38(1) of Regulation No 2392/89 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts covers decoration or advertising which is unconnected with the wine concerned.

That provision is in broad terms, indicating that the Community legislature intended to ensure that, apart from the exceptions listed, anything which could be attached to a container holding wine would be governed by the legislation on labelling, which constitutes a highly developed set of rules aimed at the prevention in the marketing of wine of all practices which are of such a nature as to create false appearances, irrespective of whether such practices give rise in the minds of those engaged in the trade or of consumers to confusion with existing products or the erroneous impression of an origin or of characteristics which in reality do not exist. The exclusion from the definition of labelling of decoration on a bottle would be liable to create such false appearances, even where the decoration has no connection with the wine itself.

Since it is covered by the definition of labelling, such decoration must be in conformity with the requirements of the regulation which determine the sole particulars permitted for describing wine on the labelling and, more specifically, given its characteristics, the requirements governing the affixing of a brand name.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Implementation by Member States ° Mere administrative practices inadequate

(EC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.)

Summary

Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the administration and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of a Member State' s obligations under Article 189 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff ° Tariff headings ° "Residues from the manufacture of starch from maize" within the meaning of subheading 2303 10 ° Inclusion by the Commission under that subheading of products containing residues from the screening of maize used in the wet process in a proportion not exceeding 15% by weight and residues of steep-water used in the manufacture of alcohol or of other starch-derived products ° Modification of the tariff heading ° Unlawfulness of Regulation No 1641/94

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Art. 9; Commission Regulation No 1641/94, Art. 1)

Summary

By including, by means of Article 1 of Regulation No 1641/94, in residues from the manufacture of starch from maize within the meaning of tariff subheading 2303 10, residues resulting from the screening of maize used in the wet process in a proportion not exceeding 15% by weight and residues of steep-water used in the manufacture of alcohol or of other starch-derived products, the Commission has modified that subheading. It therefore exceeded its power to clarify the tariff heading which had been conferred on it by Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, with the result that the regulation is to that extent invalid.

Residues from the manufacture of starch from maize include only products which result directly from the operation of extracting starch from maize and not products such as the residues resulting from the screening of maize which are already contained in bulk maize and do not undergo any change in the course of the starch extraction process and products such as residues of steep-water used in the manufacture of alcohol or of other starch-derived products which result from a separate process, subsequent to that of starch manufacture.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Milk and milk products ° Additional levy on milk ° Producer having exceeded one of his reference quantities ° Obligation to pay the levy objected to on the ground that there was no overproduction at national level, a view arrived at by comparing the quantities placed on the market and the sum of the two reference quantities, one in respect of deliveries and the other in respect of direct sales, allocated to the Member State in question ° Objection not permissible

(Regulation No 804/68 of the Council, Art. 5c(7), as amended by Regulation No 856/84 and subsequently by Regulation No 1298/85, and Council Regulation No 857/84, Art. 6a, as amended by Regulation No 590/85)

Summary

Within the system of additional milk levies, the total reference quantities allocated to a Member State in respect of direct sales and deliveries are independent of each other. A producer who has exceeded one of his individual reference quantities cannot therefore, in order to avoid the obligation to pay the levy by reason of having exceeded that quantity, rely on the fact that there was no overproduction at national level in so far as the total quantity produced remained below the sum of the two overall reference quantities available to the Member State in question.

This distinction between the two types of reference quantities is not affected by Article 5c(7) of Regulation No 804/68, as amended by Regulation No 856/84 and subsequently by Regulation No 1298/85, which, under certain circumstances, allows the overall reference quantity for deliveries available to a Member State to be adjusted in order to take account of structural changes affecting direct sales and deliveries, without, however, resulting in an increase in the sum total of that Member State' s reference quantities, or by Article 6a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 590/85, which allows individual producers with two reference quantities to obtain an increase in one of those quantities, subject to a corresponding reduction in the other quantity, in order to adapt to changes in their marketing requirements.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation on the supervision and control of waste shipments ° Action brought by undertakings specializing in waste shipment ° Inadmissibility ° Legal protection available from the national courts through an action challenging measures taken by the national authorities in implementation of the regulation

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 259/93, Arts 3 to 5)

Summary

Undertakings specializing in the collection, shipment and dumping of household waste cannot be regarded as individually concerned by the provision in Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste authorizing Member States to take measures to prohibit generally or partially or object systematically to shipments of waste, since such undertakings are concerned by the provision in question only in their objective capacity as economic operators in the sector of waste shipments between Member States in the same way as any other operator in that sector, and do not constitute a limited class of identified or identifiable operators who are particularly concerned by that provision on account of their special situation.

Since, moreover, under the procedure laid down by Articles 3 to 5 of that regulation shipments of waste from one Member State to another are subject to prior notification, by the natural or legal person intending to make or arrange such shipment, to the competent authority designated by the receiving Member State, and that authority then has 30 days following dispatch of the acknowledgement to the notifier to take its decision authorizing the shipment, with or without conditions, or refusing it, it is possible for the person concerned to argue, in support of an action challenging a refusal, that a provision in the regulation is unlawful, thereby obliging the national court to rule on all the claims made in that respect, after a preliminary reference to the Court for an assessment of its validity, with the result that economic operators enjoy effective legal protection against possible infringement by that regulation of their rights under the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organization of the markets — Export refunds — Differentiated refund — Conditions for granting — Importation of the product into the country of destination — Goods exported, by reason of force majeure, to other countries which qualify for a lower refund or none at all — Partial forfeiture of the security — Breach of the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations — None — (Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 33(5))

Summary

Article 33(5) 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 Commission Regulation No 354/90, is to be interpreted as meaning that where, owing to force majeure , goods do not reach their intended country of destination but are exported to other non-member countries which qualify for a lower export refund or none at all, the security forfeited is to be equal to the difference between the amount of the refund paid in advance and that of the refund actually due.

If the regulation were interpreted as precluding forfeiture of the security in similar circumstances, the exporter would qualify for a refund at a higher rate than that applicable to the countries into which the goods were actually imported, an outcome which clearly runs counter to Article 33(5).

Furthermore, by not allowing the security to be released in full in cases of force majeure , the regulation is not in breach of either the principle of proportionality or that of the protection of legitimate expectations.

In view of the purpose of the system of differentiated refunds, it is essential that products in respect of which a subsidy is granted in the form of a refund actually reach their destination so that they can be marketed there, and therefore forfeiture of a part of the security equal to the difference between the amount of the refund paid in advance and the amount of the refund actually due, without any penalty being imposed, is commensurate with the objective pursued by the legislature. Moreover, as is clear from the wording of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 3665/87, they cannot give rise to any legitimate expectation other than entitlement to a refund subject to the conditions laid down.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Freedom of establishment ° Freedom to provide services ° Dealing in transferable securities ° Activity restricted by a Member State to companies or firms whose registered office is on its territory ° Not permitted

(EC Treaty, Arts 52 and 59)

Summary

Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty preclude a Member State from restricting the activity of dealing in transferable securities (apart from by banks) to companies or firms whose registered office is on its territory, thus preventing dealers from other Member States who wish to exercise an activity on its territory from using certain forms of establishment, such as a branch or agency, so that they are obliged to incur additional costs compared with its own nationals, and making it altogether impossible for them to make use of their freedom to provide services.

By so doing the State applies a difference in treatment which is not objectively justified, since although the above requirement facilitates the supervision and control of operators in the market, it is neither the only means of nor an indispensable condition for, firstly, making sure that operators comply with its rules for pursuing the activity of dealer in transferable securities and, secondly, imposing effective sanctions on dealers who breach those rules. Nothing prevents the State from requiring dealers from other Member States to supply information and documents relating specifically to the activities of their secondary establishments on its territory, from making their activity subject to the provision of financial guarantees or from concluding cooperation agreements with the supervisory authorities of other Member States regarding supervision of markets and agents; furthermore, it cannot argue that it is not possible to compare the rules on access to the profession of securities dealer in the various Member States, in particular the rules on guarantees regarding companies' own funds, where its legislation expressly provides for the possibility of concluding such agreements and the different methods used by Member States to determine own funds requirements ensure equivalent protection overall.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom to provide services ° Television broadcasting activities ° Directive 89/552 ° Television broadcaster falling under the jurisdiction of a Member State ° Criterion for determination ° Establishment ° Application of other criteria ° Not permissible ° Control over broadcasts transmitted by a broadcaster falling under the jurisdiction of another Member State ° Not permissible ° Application of a control regime to non-domestic satellite services which is less stringent than that applied to domestic satellite services ° Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/552, Arts 2(1) and (2) and 3(2))

Summary

A Member State fails to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(1) and (2) and 3(2) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities if, in order to determine the satellite broadcasters falling under its jurisdiction, it adopts criteria other than that of establishment, such as transmission or reception of programmes, which lead it to exercise control, prohibited by the Directive, over broadcasts falling under the jurisdiction of another Member State and, with regard to broadcasters which it considers to fall within its jurisdiction, it applies to non-domestic satellite services a regime which is less stringent than that to which domestic satellite services are subject.

The concept of jurisdiction of a Member State, used in the first indent of Article 2(1) of the Directive, must be understood as necessarily covering jurisdiction ratione personae over television broadcasters. This can be based only on those broadcasters' connection to that State' s legal system, which in substance overlaps with the concept of establishment as used in the first paragraph of Article 59 of the EC Treaty, the wording of which presupposes that the supplier and the recipient of a service are established in two different Member States. While a Member State may, under Article 3(1) of the Directive, lay down stricter rules in the areas covered by the Directive, the fact remains that, under Article 2(1), all broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters under the jurisdiction of that Member State or over which it is required to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the second indent of Article 2(1) must comply with the law applicable to broadcasts intended for the public in that Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Freedom of establishment ° Companies ° Directive 78/660 ° Annual accounts of certain types of companies ° Principle of the true and fair view ° Requirement that only profits made at the balance-sheet date may be included ° Circumstances of the case

(Council Directive 78/660, Art. 31(1)(c)(aa))

Summary

In order to coordinate the content of annual accounts, the Fourth Directive 78/660 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by the Seventh Directive 83/349 on consolidated accounts, lays down the principle of the "true and fair view", compliance with which is the primary objective of that directive. Application of that principle must, as far as possible, be guided by the general principles contained in Article 31 of the directive, particularly in Article 31(1)(c), (aa) and (bb), and (d). It is clear from those provisions that taking account of all elements which actually relate to the financial year in question ensures observance of the principle of a true and fair view.

Where

° one company (the parent company) is the sole shareholder in another company (the subsidiary), and controls it,

° under national law, the parent company and the subsidiary form a group,

° the financial years of the two companies coincide,

° the subsidiary' s annual accounts for the financial year in question were adopted by the general meeting before completion of the audit of the parent company' s annual accounts for that year,

° the subsidiary' s annual accounts for the financial year in question, as adopted by its general meeting, show that on the subsidiary' s balance-sheet date ° namely the last day of that financial year ° the subsidiary appropriated profits to the parent company, and

° the national court is satisfied that the subsidiary' s annual accounts for the financial year in question give a true and fair view of its assets and liabilities, financial position and profit or loss,

it is not contrary to the rule laid down in Article 31(1)(c)(aa) of the directive ° according to which, for the purpose of valuing the items shown in the annual accounts, only profits made at the balance-sheet date may be included ° for the national court to consider that the profits in question must be entered in the parent company' s balance sheet for the financial year in respect of which they were appropriated by the subsidiary.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Turnover taxes ° Common system of value added tax ° Taxable amount ° Sales transaction involving acceptance, at face value, of a voucher previously sold at a discount ° Taxable amount constituted by the sum actually received on sale of the voucher

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11A(1)(a))

Summary

Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, Directive 77/388, on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a supplier has sold a voucher to a buyer at a discount and promised subsequently to accept that voucher at its face value in full or part payment of the price of goods purchased by a customer who was not the buyer of the voucher, and who does not normally know the actual price at which the voucher was sold by the supplier, the consideration represented by the voucher is the sum actually received by the supplier upon the sale of the voucher. It is therefore that sum, and not the face value of the voucher, which, in accordance with that article, must be adopted as the taxable amount for application of value added tax to the sale in respect of which the voucher was accepted in payment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Turnover taxes ° Common system of value added tax ° Supply of services ° Determination of the place where taxable transactions are effected ° Cultural and artistic activities and ancillary activities ° Ancillary activities ° Definition ° Sound-engineering for artistic events with the supply of the requisite equipment and operating staff ° Included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 9(2)(c))

Summary

The first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes which, under the special scheme for services supplied between taxable persons where the cost of the services is included in the price of the goods, lays down that the place where services relating to certain activities, including cultural and artistic activities and, where relevant, services ancillary thereto, are supplied is the place where those services are physically carried out, must be interpreted as covering the activity of a person who provides sound-engineering for artistic or entertainment events by choosing and operating the equipment used, adjusting it to the particular acoustic conditions and the desired sound effects, and who supplies the requisite equipment and operating staff, where the service which he provides constitutes a prerequisite for the performance of the principal artistic or entertainment service supplied. The fact that the person concerned has undertaken in addition to coordinate the sound effects to be produced with his assistance with certain visual effects produced by other persons cannot affect this interpretation of that provision.

The intention of the Community legislature was that where artistic or entertainment services are supplied in a Member State and the organizer of the event charges the final consumer tax in the same State, that tax ° its assessment basis being all those services the cost of which is included in the price of the complete service paid for by the final consumer ° must be paid to that State and not to the various Member States in which the various intermediate suppliers of services have established their businesses.