ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation

(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation

(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)

Summary

1. Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national legislation which, in imposing a liability to tax on dividends paid to a non-resident parent company and allowing resident parent companies almost full exemption from such tax, constitutes a discriminatory restriction on freedom of establishment.

Such a difference in the tax treatment of dividends between parent companies, based on the location of their registered office, makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise freedom of establishment and they may, in consequence, refrain from acquiring, creating or maintaining a subsidiary in the State which adopts that measure, and constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment, which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC.

It is true that, in the context of measures laid down by a Member State in order to prevent or mitigate the imposition of a series of charges to tax on, or the double taxation of, profits distributed by a resident company, resident shareholders receiving dividends are not necessarily in a situation which is comparable to that of shareholders receiving dividends who are resident in another Member State. However, as soon as a Member State, either unilaterally or by way of a convention, imposes a charge to tax on the income, not only of resident shareholders, but also of non-resident shareholders, from dividends which they receive from a resident company, the situation of those non‑resident shareholders becomes comparable to that of resident shareholders.

Once a Member State has chosen to relieve its residents of the imposition of a series of charges to tax on the profits of subsidiaries which are distributed by way of dividend to the parent companies of those subsidiaries, it must extend that relief to non-residents to the extent to which an imposition of that kind on those non-residents results from the exercise of its tax jurisdiction over them.

(see paras 29-30, 34-35, 37, 41, operative part 1)

2. Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national legislation which imposes, only as regards non-resident parent companies, a withholding tax on dividends paid by resident subsidiaries, even if a tax convention between the Member State in question and another Member State, authorising that withholding tax, provides for the tax due in that other State to be set off against the tax charged in accordance with the disputed system, whereas a parent company is unable to set off tax in that other Member State, in the manner provided for by that convention.

Irrespective of its extent, the difference in tax treatment resulting from the application of such a convention and legislation constitutes discrimination against parent companies on the basis of their registered office, which is incompatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty.

(see paras 49, 56, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States

–

Obligations

–

Implemention of directives

–

Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 8-9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Article 8a of Council Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products (OJ 1989 L 359, p. 1) as inserted by Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15 May 1992 amending that directive (OJ 1992 L 158, p. 30), and Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products – Commission statement (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26) – Prohibition on placing on the tobacco market for oral use in relation to the Åland Islands and vessels registered in Finland.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure transposition by the Åland Islands of Article 8a of Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products, as amended by Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15 May 1992 and replicated in Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, and observance on vessels registered in Finland of the prohibition on placing on the market of snuff laid down by that provision, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Directive 2001/37;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Scope – Civil and commercial matters – Meaning of ‘civil and commercial matters’

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 1, first para., first sentence)

Summary

On a proper construction of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the 1978, 1982 and 1989 Accession Conventions, ‘civil matters’ within the meaning of that provision does not cover a legal action brought by natural persons in a Contracting State against another Contracting State for compensation in respect of the loss or damage suffered by the successors of the victims of acts perpetrated by armed forces in the course of warfare in the territory of the first State.

The term ‘Civil and commercial matters’ does not cover disputes resulting from the exercise of public powers by one of the parties to the case, as it exercises powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals and there is all the more reason for such an assessment as regards a legal action for compensation deriving from operations conducted by armed forces, as such operations are one of the characteristic emanations of State sovereignty, in particular inasmuch as they are decided upon in a unilateral and binding manner by the competent public authorities and appear as inextricably linked to States’ foreign and defence policy.

The question as to whether or not the acts carried out in the exercise of public powers that constitute the basis for such proceedings are lawful concerns the nature of those acts, but not the field within which they fall. Since that field as such must be regarded as not falling within the scope of the Convention, the unlawfulness of such acts cannot justify a different interpretation.

(see paras 34-37, 41-44, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 22

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC, of 15 July 1975, on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) – Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón, situated in La Mojonera.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary provisions to ensure application of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste – as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 – and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, with regard to the waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón (Province of Almería), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC – Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulation and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedure for awarding public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Directive 93/38 (Council Directive 93/38) (see para. 22)

2. Approximation of laws – Procedure for awarding public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Directive 93/38 (Council Directive 93/38) (see paras 28, 35, 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) – Admission of the tenders of two companies not meeting the conditions of the notice to tender or of the specification – Construction and bringing into operation of a thermal power station at Lavrio.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Extrajudicial debt recovery

(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

Summary

By requiring every undertaking pursuing the activity of extrajudicial debt recovery:

– to apply, even though the undertaking holds a licence issued by the competent authority of a province, for a new licence for each other province in which it wishes to carry on its activities, unless it confers authority on an authorised agent in that other province, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

– to have premises in the territory covered by the licence and to display in those premises a list of the services which may be provided for clients, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

– to have premises in each province in which it intends to carry on its activities, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC.

(see paras 47, 64, 66, 87, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 28c(A)(a), first subpara.)

Summary

The first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, read in conjunction with Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as amended by Council Directive 92/12, and with Regulation No 218/92 on administrative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation, must be interpreted as not requiring the tax authorities of the Member State of dispatch or transport on an intra-Community supply of goods to request information from the authorities of the destination Member State alleged by the supplier.

First, the first and second recitals of the mutual assistance directive and the third recital of the administrative cooperation regulation show that their aim is to combat tax evasion and avoidance and to allow Member States to determine exactly the amount of tax to levy. Secondly, it is clear from the titles of the mutual assistance directive and the administrative cooperation regulation that they were adopted in order to govern cooperation between the tax authorities of the Member States. Thus, those measures confer no right on individuals other than that of obtaining confirmation of the validity of the ‘value added tax identification number of any specified person’ in accordance with Article 6(4) of the administrative cooperation regulation. Further, those Community measures also lay down limits on cooperation between the Member States, since the authorities of the requested State are not required to supply the information requested in all circumstances. It follows that the mutual assistance directive and the administrative cooperation regulation were not adopted for the purpose of establishing a system for exchanging information between the tax authorities of the Member States allowing them to establish the intra-Community nature of supplies made by a taxable person who is not himself able to provide the necessary evidence for that purpose.

(see paras 30-31, 33-34, 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time

(Art. 230, fifth para., EC)

2. Social security for migrant workers – Special non-contributory benefits – Definition

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, Art. 4(1)(a) and (2a)(a))

Summary

1. It is clear from the actual wording of Article 230 EC, as from its aim which is to guarantee legal certainty, that a measure which has not been challenged within a period of two months of its publication or notification or, in the absence thereof, of the date on which it came to the applicant’s knowledge, becomes definitive. That definitive nature concerns not only the measure itself, but also any later measure which is merely confirmatory. That approach, which is justified by the requirement of legal stability, applies to individual measures as well as those which have a legislative character, such as a regulation.

By contrast, where a provision in a regulation is amended, a fresh right of action arises, not only against that provision alone, but also against all the provisions which, even if not amended, form a whole with it.

(see paras 28-30)

2. With regard to special benefits of a non-contributory nature, under Article 4(2a)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, a benefit can be deemed to be special only if its purpose is solely that of specific protection for the disabled, closely linked to the social environment of those persons in the Member State concerned. Therefore, benefits which do not have that sole function, but are also intended to ensure the necessary care and the supervision of those persons, where it is essential, in their family or a specialised institution, cannot be classified as special benefits in the light of the said provision.

Secondly, pursuant to Article 4(2a)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended, a special benefit for the purposes of that provision is also defined by its purpose. It must either replace or supplement a social security benefit, while being distinguishable from it, and be by its nature social assistance justified on economic and social grounds and fixed by legislation setting objective criteria.

By contrast, a benefit is regarded as a social security benefit where it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a statutorily defined position and relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71. Thus, benefits granted objectively on the basis of a statutorily defined position and which are intended to improve the state of health and quality of life of persons reliant on care have as their essential purpose supplementing sickness insurance benefits and must be regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ for the purposes of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71.

(see paras 53-56, 61)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences (Art. 10 EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 19-20, 25)

2. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment in firms in financial difficulty, in special administration, and having at least 1 000 employees (Aid No CR 62/2003, ex NN 7/2003 – Italy) (OJ 2004 L 352, p. 10) – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover the aid declared incompatible with the common market.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

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

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Taxation apt to protect other products indirectly

(EC Treaty, Art. 95, second para. (now, after amendment, Art. 90, second para., EC))

Summary

A national taxation system which taxes wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States, more heavily than beer, which is mainly a domestic product, and which is based on the taxation of the percentage of alcohol by volume of the wine and the beer, does not appear to have the effect of affording indirect protection to national beer and therefore is not incompatible with the second paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the second paragraph of Article 90 EC) since, on the one hand, the difference between the price of strong beer and the price of wine in the intermediate category, in competition with that beer, is such that the difference in the tax treatment of those two products is not liable to influence consumer behaviour in the sector concerned and, on the other, it is not shown by the statistical information regarding sales of the products in question that there is an actual protective effect.

(see paras 57-60)
1.

Declares that, by being unable to prove that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all water-treatment plants is at least 75% for total nitrogen, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 – Commission v Spain

(Case C-357/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/55/EC – Internal market in natural gas – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-360/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/96/EC – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the period prescribed, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑361/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Waste management – Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC – Illegal and uncontrolled waste tips – Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón

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. 22)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC, of 15 July 1975, on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) – Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón, situated in La Mojonera.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary provisions to ensure application of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste – as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 – and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, with regard to the waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón (Province of Almería), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;