ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 55 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, in the version in force until 1 January 2010, must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances in which the recipient of the supplies of services was identified for value added tax purposes both in the Member State in which the services were physically carried out and in another Member State, and later only in the other Member State, and the tangible movable property to which those services related was dispatched or transported out of the Member State in which the services were physically carried out not following the supplies of services but following the later sale of the goods.

Since the place of supply of services must be determined by reference solely to the facts of the taxable transaction concerned, the condition that the goods are dispatched or transported out of the Member State in which the services are physically carried out, laid down in Article 55 of Directive 2006/112 for the application of the derogation for which it provides, must be assessed in relation to those facts alone and not by reference to any subsequent transactions. Consequently, for Article 55 to be applicable, the transport or dispatch of the goods must take place within the framework of the transaction relating to the work on those goods, before any other transaction subject to value added tax takes place concerning those goods.

(see paras 37, 38, 42, operative part)
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that, as from 16 July 2009, the existing landfills for non-hazardous waste in its territory do not continue to function unless they satisfy the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 14(a) to (c) of that directive;
The provisions of Council Directive 96/34 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Directive 97/75 (‘the Framework Agreement’), and Directive 2006/54 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a civil servant is not entitled to parental leave in a situation where his wife does not work or exercise any profession, unless it is considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife is unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child.

First, it follows from the wording of the Framework Agreement and from its objectives and context that each parent is entitled to parental leave, which means that Member States adopt cannot such legislation. Secondly, those provisions constitute direct discrimination on grounds of sex, within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/54, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) of that directive, in respect of fathers who are civil servants, as regards the granting of parental leave.

(see paras 41, 52, 53, operative part)
Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation No 794/2004 implementing Regulation No 659/1999 do not preclude national legislation which, by means of a reference to Regulation No 794/2004, provides for the application of compound interest to the recovery of State aid, even though the decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery was adopted and notified to the Member State concerned before that regulation entered into force.

Article 11(2) of Regulation No 794/2004 is, in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 13 of that regulation, applicable only to recovery decisions notified after the date that regulation entered into force, namely after 20 May 2004. Therefore, Article 11(2) of that regulation is not, as such, applicableratione temporis to a decision ordering recovery of aid, notified to a Member State before that date. In the absence of a provision under EU law on that subject, it is for national law to determine whether, in this case, the interest rate must be applied on a simple or on a compound basis.

In that regard, national legislation which refers solely to Chapter V of Regulation No 794/2004 cannot be regarded as contrary to Article 13 of that regulation. A principle prohibiting the Member States — which, before 20 May 2004 were solely competent to determine the basis of calculation of interest — from legislating in one way rather than in another cannot however be deduced from such a limitation of the applicability ratione temporis of Regulation No 794/2004, resulting from rules laid down by Article 13 thereof. Article 13 of Regulation No 794/2004 therefore does not introduce a rule of non-retroactivity applicable to national legislation before the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004.

Where State aid, declared incompatible with the common market by a Commission decision, notified before the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004, had not been recovered or even set out in a tax assessment on the date of entry into force of national legislation imposing, for the recovery of such aid, the application of compound interest replacing previous provisions providing for the application of simple interest, that national legislation cannot be considered to affect a situation which arose earlier. Therefore, such national legislation has no retroactive effect and only applies new rules to the future effects of situations which arose under the earlier rules. Consequently, the general principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude such legislation.

(see paras 27-29, 32, 34, 39-41, 43, 48, operative part)
Article 24(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract.

The basis of assessment for a supply of services is everything which makes up the consideration for the service and a supply of services is therefore taxable only if there is a direct link between the service supplied and the consideration received. Where the supply of services in question is characterised, inter alia, by the permanent availability of the service provider in order to supply, at the appropriate time, the services required by the customer, it is not necessary, in order to find that there is a direct link between that service and the consideration received, to establish that a payment relates to a personalised supply of services at a specific time carried out at the request of a customer. The fact that the services provided are neither defined in advance nor personalised and that the payment is made in the form of a lump sum is also not such as to affect the direct link between the supply of services made and the consideration received, the amount of which is determined in advance on the basis of well-established criteria.

(see paras 35, 38, 39, 43, operative part 1)
Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Regulation No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Regulation No 1080/2010, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which may give rise to the reduction or refusal of a retirement pension payable to an employed person who is a national of that Member State by virtue of the service performed, in accordance with its legislation, where the total number of years of the occupational record acquired by him as an employed person in that Member State and as an EU official posted in that Member State exceeds the ‘occupational record unit’ of 45 years referred to in that legislation, in so far as, owing to the method used to calculate the fraction representing the size of the pension payable by the European Union, that reduction is greater than it would have been had he acquired the whole of his occupational record as an employed person in the Member State in question.

Such national legislation is liable to impede not only the recruitment by the EU institutions of national officials with a certain length of service but also the retention of experienced officials in the service of those institutions. It could thus deter a worker who has acquired a certain length of service under the pension scheme for employed persons in that Member State from accepting a post in the service of an EU institution located in that State or encourage him to leave the post he holds in that institution early if, on account of that legislation, he may, by holding a post in that institution or by remaining in its service for a considerable time, lose the opportunity of benefiting from the pension rights which he has acquired by virtue of his activity as an employed person within that Member State prior to entering the service of the European Union.

(see paras 43, 44, 53, operative part)
Article 27(1)(d) of Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to exempt laid down in that provision applies to ethyl alcohol used by an undertaking for cleaning or disinfecting equipment and facilities used in the production of medicines.

The wording of that provision does not make application of that exemption subject to a condition either that those products be used directly for the production of medicines or that they form part of the composition of the medicines for the production of which they are used. That exemption seeks to neutralise the effect of the harmonised excise duty on alcohol used for the production of medicines, whether that alcohol forms part of the composition of those medicines or whether it is merely necessary to their production without forming part of their composition.

It follows therefrom that, in so far as the ethyl alcohol is used for the purpose of disinfection which is inherent in the production process for medicines, it must be regarded as being used ‘for the production of medicines’ within the meaning of Article 27(1)(d) of Directive 92/83.

(see paras 20, 23, 26, 28, operative part)
Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where the infringement of a provision of EU law was discovered only after the occurrence of the prejudice, the limitation period begins to run from the time when both the economic operator’s act or omission that infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the European Union or budgets managed by it have occurred.

Such a finding is consistent with the aim of Regulation No 2988/95 which, pursuant to Article 1(1) thereof, is intended to protect the European Union’s financial interests. The date from which the limitation period begins to run (dies a quo) is the date of the event that last occurs, namely either the date of the occurrence of the prejudice, where the prejudice occurs after the act or omission infringing EU law, or the date of that act or omission, where the advantage at issue has been granted before the act or omission. Moreover, that conclusion is not called into question by the argument according to which the dies a quo is the day that the irregularity is discovered since the date on which the authorities become aware of an irregularity is irrelevant to the starting point of the limitation period. Indeed, the public service owes a general obligation of diligence when verifying the legality of payments made by it that are borne by the European Union’s budget.

(see paras 25-29, operative part 1)
Article 63(1) TFEU precludes national legislation under which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates issued by the Member State in question may be used on the road network in that Member State and under which, if a resident of that Member State seeks to rely on a derogation from that rule, on the grounds that he uses a vehicle made available to him by the keeper of that vehicle established in another Member State, he must be able to prove on the spot, during a police check, that he fulfils the conditions for such a derogation, as laid down by the national legislation in question, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement, without any possibility of an exemption from that fine. It would be otherwise only if the vehicle registered in a different Member State is intended to be used essentially in the territory of the Member State concerned on a permanent basis or if it is, in fact, used in that way, which it is for the referring court to determine.

While such a law appears to be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective of combating tax fraud in the field of registration tax and tax on motor vehicles, it must nevertheless be considered to go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. It cannot be concluded that the objective of combating tax fraud could be attained only if the documents proving that the conditions for derogation from the registration requirement are fulfilled are produced on the spot at a roadside check, on pain of a fine equivalent to that applicable for breach of the registration requirement, and that such an objective could not be attained if those documents were produced, as in the case in the main proceedings, within a short period of time after that check.

As regards the justifications based on the need for roadside checks to be effective, such a measure, imposing a fine of a considerable sum intended specifically to penalise the failure to comply with the registration requirement goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of ensuring roadside checks are effective.

(see paras 30, 32-34, 37, operative part)
The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an end-of-contract payment, paid in addition to an employee’s salary on the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract where the contractual relationship is not continued in the form of a contract for an indefinite period, is not payable in the event that the contract is concluded with a young person for a period during his school holidays or university vacation.

In the present case, the end-of-contract payment is intended to compensate for the insecurity of the employee’s situation where the contractual relationship is not continued in the form of a contract for an indefinite period and young persons who have concluded a fixed-term employment contract for a period during their school holidays or university vacation are expressly excluded from entitlement to that payment.

The national legislature thus, by necessary implication, considered that those young persons are not, on the expiry of their contract, in a situation of job insecurity.

Employment carried out on the basis of a fixed-term contract by a pupil or student during his school holidays or university vacation is characterised by being both temporary and ancillary, since that pupil or student intends to continue his studies at the end of that holiday or vacation.

It follows that, by holding that the situation of those young persons is not comparable to that of other categories of workers eligible for the end-of-contract payment, the national legislature in no way exceeded the bounds of its discretion in the field of social policy. The difference in treatment between those two categories of workers therefore does not constitute discrimination on grounds of age.

(see paras 34-37, 39, 40, operative part)
Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that a commercial lease agreement for the letting of a large shop or hypermarket located in a shopping centre contains a clause granting the lessee the right to oppose the letting by the lessor, in that centre, of commercial premises to other tenants does not mean that the object of that agreement is to restrict competition within the meaning of that provision.

In EU competition law, commercial lease agreements, for the letting of a large shop or hypermarket located in a shopping centre and which contain a clause granting the lessee the right to oppose the letting by the lessor, in that centre, of commercial premises to other tenants, may be considered to be an integral part of an agreement having the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU where it is found, after a thorough analysis of the economic and legal context in which the agreements occur and the specificities of the relevant market, that they make an appreciable contribution to the closing-off of that market. The extent of the contribution of each agreement to that closing-off effect depends, in particular, on the position of the contracting parties on the market at issue and the duration of that agreement.

(see para. 31, operative part 2)
Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 16(1) of that regulation, must, in so far as it relates to the contract concluded in the context of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by the professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to a contract concluded between a consumer and a professional, which on its own does not come within the scope of the commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by that professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, but which is closely linked to a contract concluded beforehand by those same parties in the context of such an activity. It is for the national court to determine whether the constituent elements of that link are present, in particular whether the parties to both of those contracts are identical in law or in fact, whether the economic objective of those contracts concerning the same specific subject-matter is identical and whether the second contract complements the first contract in that it seeks to make it possible for the economic objective of that first contract to be achieved.

That could be the case, in particular, for a transaction-management contract which was concluded as a direct extension of such a commercial or professional activity and which is complementary to a brokerage contract, concluded previously by those same parties with a view to the purchase by the buyers residing in a Member State of an apartment in the broker’s Member State of residence, in that the transaction-management contract seeks to make it possible for the economic objective of the brokerage contract to be achieved, that is to say, the effective enjoyment of the apartment. Even though it is true that there is no legal interdependence between the brokerage contract and the transaction-management contract, it must be held that there is an economic link between those two contracts.

(see paras 35-37, 40, operative part)
In that regard, where an occupational pension scheme was covered, in its entirety, by a declaration made under Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2004 by the Principality of Liechtenstein, which must be treated in the same way as a Member State for the purposes of applying that regulation, the old-age benefits under that scheme must be regarded as falling within the scope of the regulation.

When old-age benefits have been mentioned in a declaration of a Member State under Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, they fall within the scope of that regulation.

Article 5(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that old-age benefits provided under an occupational pension scheme of one Member State and those provided under a statutory pension scheme of another Member State — both schemes being within the scope of that regulation — are equivalent benefits within the meaning of that provision, where both categories of benefits have the same aim of ensuring that their recipients maintain a standard of living commensurate with that which they enjoyed prior to retirement.

The fact that there are differences relating, inter alia, to the way in which the rights to those benefits have been acquired, or to the fact that it is possible for the insured to obtain voluntary supplementary benefits, does not give grounds for reaching a different conclusion.

An objective justification for applying differential treatment to the old-age benefits in question might, in some circumstances, exist if contributions for sickness benefits were levied in one Member State on the old-age benefits provided under the occupational pension scheme of the other Member State, even though such contributions had already been levied in the latter Member State.

(see paras 36-38, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 —

Germany v Commission

(Case C‑446/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — State aid — Services for the removal of animal carcasses and waste from abattoirs — Maintenance of reserve capacity in the event of an outbreak — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Service of general economic interest — Manifest error of assessment — Compensation for the public service obligation — Obligation to state reasons’

1. State aid — Definition — Measures designed to compensate for the cost of public service missions undertaken by an undertaking — Not included — Conditions set out in the Altmark judgment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 23-38)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law (see paras 42-45)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
4.

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of an executive agency of the European Union not to regard as eligible certain costs incurred in undertaking a project benefiting from European Union financial aid — Body entrusted with the implementation of that project not directly concerned (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulations No 1998/2006 and No 1407/2013) (see paras 61, 63-65)
2.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case — No need to specify all the relevant factual and legal elements (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 18)