ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Planned aid – Grant of aid in breach of the prohibition laid down in Article 88(3) EC – Later Commission decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market

(Art. 88(3) EC)

Summary

Where planned State aid was properly notified to the Commission and was not put into effect prior to the Commission’s decision, such aid can be put into effect as from the moment at which the decision is adopted, including, where relevant, in respect of a period predating the decision which is covered by the measure that has been declared compatible.

Where aid has been granted to a recipient in disregard of the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, the national court may be required, upon application by another operator and even after the Commission has adopted a positive decision, to rule on the validity of the implementing measures and the recovery of the financial support granted. In such a case, although Community law requires the national court to order the measures appropriate effectively to remedy the consequences of the unlawfulness, it does not, even in the absence of exceptional circumstances, impose an obligation of full recovery of the unlawful aid. Pursuant to Community law, the national court must order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness. Within the framework of its domestic law, it may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State’s right to re-implement it, subsequently. It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.

Therefore, in a situation where the unlawful putting into effect of aid is followed by a positive Commission decision, Community law does not preclude the recipient from, on the one hand, demanding the disbursement of aid payable for the future and, on the other hand, keeping aid received that was granted prior to the positive decision, subject always to the consequences arising from unlawfulness of aid disbursed prematurely. The criterion that determines whether aid can be disbursed to a recipient in relation to a period predating a positive decision, or whether that recipient can keep aid already disbursed is therefore the finding, by the Commission, that the aid is compatible with the common market.

Thus, the prohibition on putting State aid into effect laid down in the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC does not require a national court to dismiss an action brought by an aid recipient concerning the amount of that aid allegedly due in respect of a period predating a decision of the Commission finding that aid to be compatible with the common market.

(see paras 26-31, 39, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Exclusion from the right to deduct

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(6), second para.)

Summary

The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes precludes a Member State from repealing in their entirety, when that directive is transposed into national law, national provisions concerning restrictions on the right to deduct input tax on purchases of fuel for vehicles used for a taxable activity, by replacing, on the date on which that directive entered into force on its territory, those provisions by provisions laying down new criteria in that regard, if – which it is for the national court to determine – the latter provisions have the effect of extending the scope of those restrictions. In that connection, the concept of ‘national legislation’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive refers to the rules on deducting VAT existing and actually applied when that directive entered into force. The ‘standstill’ clause, provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive is not intended to allow a new Member State to amend its domestic legislation on its accession to the European Union in a way which diverts that legislation from the objectives of that directive. The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) precludes, in any event, a Member State from subsequently amending its legislation which entered into force on that date, so as to extend the scope of those restrictions as compared with the situation existing prior to that date.

(see paras 38-39, 45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Proceedings relating to irregularities – Limitation period

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1))

Summary

The limitation period of four years laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests is not applicable to a claim for recovery of an export refund unduly granted to an exporter as a result of an error on the part of the national authorities, where that exporter did not commit any irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation.

In those circumstances, the limitation period for the recovery of amounts unduly paid is governed by the relevant rules of domestic law. In the absence of provisions of Community law, disputes concerning the recovery of amounts wrongly paid under Community law must be decided by national courts in application of their own domestic law, subject, however, to the limits imposed by Community law, on the basis that the rules and procedures laid down by domestic law must not have the effect of making it practically impossible or excessively difficult to recover the aid not due and that the national legislation must be applied in a manner which is not discriminatory as compared to procedures for deciding similar national disputes.

Furthermore, the Community’s interest in recovering export refunds which have been received in breach of the conditions under which they were granted must be taken fully into consideration when defining the limitation periods applicable to such a recovery.

(see paras 23-26, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Liability – Extent – Constitutionally independent institutions (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 19-20)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 22)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Certain subscribers not included in the universal directory.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not guaranteeing, in practice, the making available to all end-users of at least one comprehensive directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service in accordance with the provisions of Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Visas, asylum, immigration – Asylum policy – Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status – Directive 2004/83 – Eligibility conditions for subsidiary protection

(Council Directive 2004/83, Art. 15(b) and (c))

2. Visas, asylum, immigration – Asylum policy – Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status – Directive 2004/83 – Eligibility conditions for subsidiary protection

(Council Directive 2004/83, Arts 2(e) and 15(c))

Summary

1. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) forms part of the general principles of Community law, observance of which is ensured by the Court. In addition, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is taken into consideration in interpreting the scope of that right in the Community legal order. However, it is Article 15(b) of Directive 2004/83 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, which corresponds, in essence, to Article 3 of the ECHR.

By contrast, Article 15(c) of that directive is a provision, the content of which is different from that of Article 3 of the ECHR, and the interpretation of which must, therefore, be carried out independently, although with due regard for fundamental rights as they are guaranteed under the ECHR.

(see para. 28)

2. Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/83 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, in conjunction with Article 2(e) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

– the existence of a serious and individual threat to the life or person of an applicant for subsidiary protection is not subject to the condition that that applicant adduce evidence that he is specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances;

– the existence of such a threat can exceptionally be considered to be established where the degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the armed conflict taking place – assessed by the competent national authorities before which an application for subsidiary protection is made, or by the courts of a Member State to which a decision refusing such an application is referred – reaches such a high level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a civilian, returned to the relevant country or, as the case may be, to the relevant region, would, solely on account of his presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to that threat.

That interpretation is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to Article 3 of the ECHR.

(see paras 43-44, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83 – Advertising

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, Art. 86)

Summary

Article 86 of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27, is to be interpreted as meaning that dissemination by a third party of information about a medicinal product, including its therapeutic or prophylactic properties, may be regarded as advertising within the meaning of that article, even though the third party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the seller of such a medicinal product. It is for the national court to determine whether that dissemination constitutes a form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicinal products.

(see para. 29, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment – Community action in the field of water policy – Directive 2000/60 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60, Arts 2, para. 15, and 3(2), (7) and (8)) (see paras 31-32, 39, 43, 48, 54, 62, 64)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 36, 49, 56, 61)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Article 3(2), (7) and (8) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to designate the competent authorities for the application of the provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy concerning the Autonomous Communities of Galicia, the Basque Country, Andalusia, the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2), (7) and (8) of that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to lay down, in its national legislation, a general requirement that economic activities in which bodies governed by public law engage otherwise than in their capacity as a public authority are to be subject to value added tax;

by failing to lay down, in its national legislation, either a general requirement that bodies governed by public law acting in their capacity as a public authority are to be subject to value added tax where their treatment as non-taxable persons gives rise to significant distortions of competition or any criterion providing a framework for the exercise, in that connection, of the Minister for Finance’s discretion, and

by failing to lay down, in its national legislation, a general requirement that bodies governed by public law engaged in activities listed in Annex I to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax are to be subject to such tax, provided that those activities are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 13 of the Directive.

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 11(a))

Summary

Article 11(a) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the levying of a duty on the issue of shares into a clearance service.

To permit the levying of tax or duty on the initial acquisition of a newly issued security amounts in reality to taxing the very issue of that security as it forms an integral part of an overall transaction with regard to the raising of capital.

That initial acquisition cannot be considered to constitute a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 69/335 if it is not to deprive Article 11(a) of that directive of its practical effect and call in question the clear distinction established by those two articles between the concepts of ‘issue’ and ‘transfer’. In fact, such an interpretation would have the consequence that issues could nevertheless be subject to a tax or duty, although they, while necessarily involving an acquisition of newly issued securities, must not, under Article 11(a), be subject to any taxes or duties other than capital duty. Accordingly, a tax on that initial acquisition cannot fall within the derogation under Article 12(1)(a). Moreover, that tax cannot be considered, in reality, to apply to future transfers, since neither the tax basis of that tax nor the taxable person is determined by reference to such transfers, which are in any event hypothetical.

Therefore, to the extent that that tax is levied on new securities following an increase in capital, such a tax constitutes taxation for the purposes of Article 11(a) of that directive which is prohibited by that provision.

(see paras 32, 34-38, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2007 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑60/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/33/EC – Technical requirements for blood and blood components – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components (OJ 1998 L 91, p. 25).

Operative part

By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Declares that by not having adopted the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 March 2008 – Commission v France

(Case C‑89/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Posts in the public service – Posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on board all ships flying the flag of a Member State – Nationality requirement

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Protection of public policy, public security and public health (Art. 39(3) EC) (see paras 11-12, operative part)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Posts in the public service – Meaning (Art. 39(4) EC) (see paras 14, 18, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 39(4) EC – Freedom of movement for workers – Exercise of public power – Requirement of French nationality for the pursuit of employment as master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag – Incompatible with Community law.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation a requirement of French nationality for access to the posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑328/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/48/EC – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2 of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, as amended by Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 June 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑272/07)

Public procurement – Directive 2004/18/EC – Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 10-11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 13-14)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 15)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;