ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
29

In those circumstances, the Corte suprema di cassazione (Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Under Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, can an action to contest the jurisdiction of the national court seised that is brought before that court as a preliminary matter but in the alternative to other preliminary procedural objections and nevertheless before issues of substance are raised be interpreted as acceptance of the jurisdiction of that court? (2) Must the absence of provision in Article 82[(5)] of Regulation [No 6/2002] for alternative jurisdictions to that of the defendant as stipulated in Article 82(1) of that regulation for cases relating to negative declarations be interpreted as implying the attribution of exclusive jurisdiction for such cases? (3) Is it also necessary, in order to resolve the [second question], to take account of the interpretation of the rules on exclusive jurisdiction in Regulation [No 44/2001], and in particular in Article 22, which provides for such jurisdiction, inter alia in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks and designs but not in cases regarding negative declarations, and in Article 24, which provides for the possibility that the defendant may accept a different jurisdiction, except where jurisdiction is derived from other provisions of the regulation, thereby establishing the jurisdiction of the court seised by the applicant? (4) Is the approach adopted by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 25 October 2012 (Folien Fischer and Fofitec (C‑133/11, EU:C:2012:664)) with regard to the applicability of Article 5(3) of Regulation [No 44/2001] of a general and absolute nature applicable to every action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict, including those for a declaration of non-infringement of Community designs, and hence in the present case is it the court referred to in Article 81 of Regulation [No 6/2002] or that referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation [No 44/2001] that has jurisdiction, or may the applicant opt for one or other of the possible jurisdictions? (5) If actions for abuse of a dominant position and unfair competition are brought in the context of a case concerning Community designs with which they are connected, in that their admissibility presupposes prior admissibility of the application for a negative declaration, can they be heard together with that case by the same court in accordance with a broad interpretation of Article 28(3) of Regulation [No 44/2001]? (6) Do the two actions referred to [in the previous question] constitute a case of tort, delict or quasi-delict, and, if so, may they affect the applicability of Regulation [No 44/2001] (Article 5(3)) or of Regulation [No 6/2002] to the present case as regards jurisdiction?’
7

Article 29 of decreto legislativo n. 152 — Norme in materia ambientale (Legislative Decree No 152 on environmental standards) of 3 April 2006 (ordinary supplement to GURI No 88 of 14 April 2006) provides: ‘1. An environmental impact assessment, for the projects of works or interventions to which the provisions of the present decree apply, is a prior condition or an integral part of the consent or approval procedure. Decisions concerning consent or approval taken without a prior environmental impact assessment, when such an EIA is required, may be annulled for breach of law. … 4. Where works and interventions have been carried out without the project having been subject beforehand to a preliminary verification or an assessment, in breach of the provisions referred to in Title III of the present decree, and in the case of irregularities of application as provided for in the final decisions, the competent authorities shall assess the extent of environmental damage caused and the damage resulting from the application of a penalty, and is then to order that works on the project be suspended and may order that the construction be demolished and the site restored to its former state and environmental position at the expense of the person responsible, the time limits and conditions of which it shall determine. If the person responsible fails to comply, the competent authorities shall order that demolition and restoration of their own motion at the expense of that person who has failed to comply. Those expenses shall be reimbursed according to the procedures provided for in, and the effects of, the single text of the rules relating to State capital revenue collection approved by Royal Decree No 639 of 14 April 1910 concerning State capital revenue collection. 5. Where an authorisation or consent issued following an environmental impact assessment has been annulled by the courts or withdrawn by a public authority, or where an assessment that a project is environmentally compatible is annulled, the powers referred to in paragraph 4 shall be exercised only after a new environmental impact assessment has been carried out. …’
12

Article 3 of that regulation provides: ‘1. The additional duty shall be established on the basis of the cif import price of the consignment in question in accordance with the provisions of Article 4. 2. When the cif import price per 100 kg of a consignment is higher than the applicable representative price referred to in Article 2(1), the importer shall present to the competent authorities of the importing Member States at least the following proofs: – the purchasing contract, or any other equivalent document, – the insurance contract, – the invoice, – the certificate of origin (where applicable), – the transport contract, – and, in the case of sea transport, the bill of lading. 3. In the case referred to in paragraph 2, the importer must lodge the security referred to in Article 248(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 [of 2 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1)], equal to the amount of additional duty which he would have paid if the calculation of the additional duty had been made on the basis of the representative price applicable to the product in question .... 4. The importer shall have one month from the sale of the products in question, subject to a limit of six months from the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation, to prove that the consignment was disposed of under conditions confirming the correctness of the prices referred to in paragraph 2. Failure to meet one or other of these deadlines shall entail the loss of the security lodged. However, the time limit of six months may be extended by the competent authorities by a maximum of three months at the request of the importer, which must be duly substantiated. The security lodged shall be released to the extent that proof of the conditions of disposal is provided to the satisfaction of the customs authorities. Otherwise, the security shall be forfeit by way of payment of the additional duties. 5. If on verification the competent authorities establish that the requirements of this Article have not been met, they shall recover the duty due in accordance with Article 220 of the Customs Code. The amount of the duty to be recovered or remaining to be recovered shall include interest from the date the goods were released for free circulation up to the date of recovery. The interest rate applied shall be that in force for recovery operations under national law.’
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it does preclude Member State legislation that prevents a taxable person, established in the territory of that Member State, deducting input value added tax due or paid in that Member State in respect of services provided by taxable persons established in other Member States and used to provide services in Member States other than the Member State in which that taxable person is established, on the ground that that taxable person is identified for value added tax purposes by virtue of one of the two cases referred to in Article 214(1)(d) and (e) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162. However, Article 168(a) and Article 169(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State that prevents a taxable person, established in the territory of that Member State and eligible there for a tax exemption scheme, exercising its right to deduct input value added tax due or paid in that Member State for services provided by taxable persons established in other Member States and used to provide services in Member States other than the Member State in which that taxable person is established.
20

That court considers that there is uncertainty concerning the scope of the national courts’ jurisdiction in the light of Articles 9 and 16 of Regulation No 1/2003. In that regard, it states that the Commission seems to have minimised the effect of the commitment decision, in stating in the opinion of 8 July 2009 — requested on the basis of Article 15 of Regulation No 1/2003 by the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Barcelona (Barcelona Commercial Court, Spain) in the case giving rise to the order of 27 March 2014, Bright Service (C‑142/13, not published, EU:C:2014:204) — that that decision is without prejudice to the analysis which the Commission might carry out on the basis of subsequent investigations and additional facts. The commitment decision is, it is argued, also without prejudice to the analysis which the national court must carry out. In the Commission’s view, the sole aim of decisions based on Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003 is that the commitments made by the parties in order to resolve problems of competition observed are binding on the undertakings concerned, and those decisions do not rule on whether there has been, or whether there still is an infringement of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU.
3

Recitals 1, 17, 26 and 27 of Regulation No 561/2006 state: ‘(1) In the field of road transport, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport [OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1 ] sought to harmonise the conditions of competition between modes of inland transport, especially with regard to the road transport sector, and to improve working conditions and road safety. Progress in these areas should be safeguarded and extended. … (17) This Regulation aims to improve social conditions for employees who are covered by it, as well as to improve general road safety. It does so mainly by means of the provisions pertaining to maximum driving times per day, per week and per period of two consecutive weeks, the provision which obliges drivers to take a regular weekly rest period at least once per two consecutive weeks and the provisions which prescribe that under no circumstances should a daily rest period be less than an uninterrupted period of nine hours. … … (26) The Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this regulation and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties must be effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-discriminatory. The possibility of immobilising the vehicle where serious infringements are detected should also be included within the common range of measures open to Member States. The provisions contained in this regulation pertaining to penalties or proceedings should not affect national rules concerning the burden of proof. (27) It is desirable in the interests of clear and effective enforcement to ensure uniform provisions on the liability of transport undertakings and drivers for infringements of this Regulation. This liability may result in penal, civil or administrative penalties as may be the case in the Member States.’
3

Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33; ‘the 2003 Act of Accession’) is entitled ‘List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Hungary’. Chapter 3 of that annex, entitled ‘Free movement of capital’, provides in paragraph 2: ‘Notwithstanding the obligations under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, Hungary may maintain in force for seven years from the date of accession the prohibitions laid down in its legislation existing at the time of signature of this Act on the acquisition of agricultural land by natural persons who are non-residents or non-nationals of Hungary and by legal persons. In no instance may nationals of the Member States or legal persons formed in accordance with the laws of another Member State be treated less favourably in respect of the acquisition of agricultural land than at the date of signature of the Accession Treaty. ... Nationals of another Member State who want to establish themselves as self-employed farmers and who have been legally resident and active in farming in Hungary at least for three years continuously, shall not be subject to the provisions of the preceding subparagraph or to any rules and procedures other than those to which nationals of Hungary are subject. ... If there is sufficient evidence that, upon expiry of the transitional period, there will be serious disturbances or a threat of serious disturbances on the agricultural land market of Hungary, the Commission, at the request of Hungary, shall decide upon the extension of the transitional period for up to a maximum of three years.’
6

Article 147 of the directive provides: ‘1. Where the supply of goods referred to in point (b) of Article 146(1) relates to goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the exemption shall apply only if the following conditions are met: (a) the traveller is not established within the Community; (b) the goods are transported out of the Community before the end of the third month following that in which the supply takes place; (c) the total value of the supply, including VAT, is more than EUR 175 or the equivalent in national currency, fixed annually by applying the conversion rate obtaining on the first working day of October with effect from 1 January of the following year. However, Member States may exempt a supply with a total value of less than the amount specified in point (c) of the first subparagraph. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, “a traveller who is not established within the Community” shall mean a traveller whose permanent address or habitual residence is not located within the Community. In that case “permanent address or habitual residence” means the place entered as such in a passport, identity card or other document recognised as an identity document by the Member State within whose territory the supply takes place. Proof of exportation shall be furnished by means of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof, endorsed by the customs office of exit from the Community. Each Member State shall send to the Commission specimens of the stamps it uses for the endorsement referred to in the second subparagraph. The Commission shall transmit that information to the tax authorities of the other Member States.’
14

In those circumstances, the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions, formulated in identical terms in Cases C‑236/16 and C‑237/16, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Articles 49 and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax stated to be levied on the environmental damage caused by the use of facilities and amenities attached to the business and trade carried on in retail establishments with large sales and parking areas for their customers, provided that the public sales area exceeds 500 m2, but that applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated outside or inside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (a) is not actually levied on traders who own several retail establishments, irrespective of their total public sales area, if none of them has a public sales area exceeding 500 m2, even if one or more of them exceeds that threshold but the basis of assessment does not exceed 2000 m2, while it does apply to traders who own a single retail establishment with a public sales area exceeding those thresholds; and (b) is not levied on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies, construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals, fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops, as well as garden centres and service stations, irrespective of their total public sales area? (2) Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the following constitutes State aid prohibited under that provision: the fact that the IDMGAV is not levied on retail establishments with a public sales area not exceeding 500 m2 or on those exceeding that threshold provided that the basis of assessment does not exceed 2000 m2, or on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops, as well as garden centres and service stations?’
13

Under Article 24 of that regulation: ‘1. Where a Member State on whose territory a person as referred to in Article 18(1)(b), (c) or (d) is staying without a residence document and with which no new application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible in accordance with Article 20(5) and Article 18(1)(b), (c) or (d), it may request that other Member State to take back that person. 2. By way of derogation from Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals [(OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98)], where a Member State on whose territory a person is staying without a residence document decides to search the Eurodac system …, the request to take back a person as referred to in Article 18(1)(b) or (c) of this Regulation, or a person as referred to in its Article 18(1)(d) whose application for international protection has not been rejected by a final decision, shall be made as quickly as possible and in any event within two months of receipt of the Eurodac hit … … 5. The request for the person referred to in Article 18(1)(b), (c) or (d) to be taken back shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3) and/or relevant elements from the person’s statements, enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation. …’
21

Paragraph 8 of the GütbefG, ‘Obtaining of authorisations’, provides: ‘(1) A permit under Paragraph 7(1)(3) shall be granted for individual transports of goods. A permit is to be granted only if there is a substantial public interest therein. The applicant must show credibly that the journey cannot be avoided either by organisational measures or by the choice of another means of transport. A permit is to be refused if (in view in particular of the transport facilities already existing in Federal territory) there is no need for the transport of goods applied for. The transport and economic interests of Austria, the protection of the population and the environment, and the possibility of carrying out the transport of goods by way of other transport facilities are to be taken into account. … (3) On the basis of this Federal Law, agreements may be concluded on the cross-border carriage of goods in accordance with Paragraph 7 if the volume of goods traffic between States requires this. Provision is to be made in the agreements that motor vehicles with foreign number plates may carry out journeys into, through and out of Austria on a reciprocal basis. Quotas may also be laid down between States, in defining the extent of which the transport and economic interests of Austria and the protection of the population and the environment are to be taken into account … (4) The agreed quotas are to be issued in a simplified procedure. The competent authority can issue confirmations that the conditions laid down in the agreement, in particular compliance with the agreed quota, are satisfied (quota authorisation). … (5) By regulation of the Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology, the issue of the quota authorisation in accordance with subparagraph 4 from the temporal, geographical and material point of view, its external form, the detailed provisions of the procedure for issue, and the professional competence and conditions of operational capacity of the operator of carriage of goods for the cross-border carriage of goods shall be regulated. New applicants for the issue of a quota authorisation are to be taken into account appropriately in relation to the market shares of the operators already active in the cross-border carriage of goods …’
Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning, subject to verification of the relevant facts by the referring court, that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company performs certain public tasks under a contract concluded between that company and a municipality, constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration and subject to VAT under that provision.

Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification of the relevant matters of fact and national law by the referring court, an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company performs certain public municipal tasks under a contract concluded between that company and a municipality, does not fall within the scope of the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for VAT purposes laid down by that provision, if that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive.

(see para. 57, operative part 2)