ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Tax legislation

(Art. 56 TFEU)

Summary

Article 56 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State pursuant to which the benefit of a tax credit for investments is denied to an undertaking which is established solely in that Member State on the sole ground that the capital goods, in respect of which that credit is claimed, are physically used in the territory of another Member State.

Such a national provision – which applies a less favourable tax regime to investments used in the territory of other Member States, in which the undertaking concerned is not established, than to investments that are used in national territory – is likely, if not to discourage national undertakings from providing, in other Member States, services that require the use of capital goods situated in those other Member States, at least to make that provision of cross-border services less attractive or more difficult than the provision of services in national territory by means of capital goods situated in that territory.

Such national rules cannot be justified by the need to ensure the coherence of the national tax system since there is no direct link, as regards the tax system concerned, between, on the one hand, the grant to a resident undertaking providing services in other Member States of a tax credit for investments used for those purposes and, on the other hand, the financing of that tax advantage by means of the tax levied on the income made by the recipients of the services provided by means of those assets.

Such rules cannot, moreover, be justified by the need to prevent abuse since they affect every undertaking which uses capital goods in the territory of another Member State, and do so even where nothing points towards the existence of a wholly artificial arrangement which does not reflect economic reality and whose only purpose is to obtain a tax advantage.

Furthermore such a national provision which consistently refuses the benefit of a tax advantage when the investment is not used in national territory, notwithstanding the fact that the investment in question is unconnected with any social objective, cannot be justified by the discretion of Member States to choose the interests of the general public which they wish to promote by granting tax advantages.

(see paras 17, 23, 25, 28-30, 32, 34, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see paras 10-11)

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. 258 TFEU) (see para. 20)

3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see point 21)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17).

Operative part

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 Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 thereof;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/10 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise)

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/10, Arts 3 and 5 to 7)

2. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/10 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise)

(European parliament and Council Directive 2003/10, Art. 5)

Summary

1. Directive 2003/10 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise), as amended by Directive 2007/30, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer in a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dB(A), measured without taking account of the effect of individual hearing protectors, fails to fulfil the obligations resulting from that directive by simply providing the workers with such hearing protectors so that the daily noise exposure level is reduced to less than 80 dB(A), that employer being obliged to put in hand a programme of technical or organisational measures intended to reduce such noise exposure to a level of less than 85 dB(A), measured without taking into account the effect of the individual hearing protectors.

(see para. 34, operative part 1)

2. Directive 2003/10 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise), as amended by Directive 2007/30, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require an employer to make an extra payment to workers who are exposed to a noise level above 85 dB(A), measured without taking into account the effect of the individual hearing protectors on the sole ground that it has not put in hand a programme of technical or organisational measures intended to reduce the daily noise exposure level. However, national law must provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure that a worker who is exposed to a noise level above 85 dB(A), measured without taking into account the effect of the individual hearing protectors, can require the employer to fulfil the preventive obligations set out in Article 5(2) of that directive.

(see para. 43, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law – Failure to take into account all the factors relevant to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b), Regulation No 40/94 – Distortion of the content of an act

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Likelihood of association – Earlier trade marks with characteristics enabling them to be regarded as part of the same ‘series’ or ‘family’ – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. The existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. Whereas the evaluation of those factors is an issue of fact that cannot be reviewed by the Court, failure to take all those factors into account, on the other hand, constitutes an error of law and may, as such, be raised before the Court in the context of an appeal. This also applies to the claim according to which the General Court distorted the analysis carried out by the Board of Appeal, as distortion of the content of an act too constitutes an error of law.

(see paras 45-46)

2. The risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

When opposition is based on the existence of several trade marks with shared characteristics enabling them to be regarded as part of the same ‘family’ or ‘series’ of trade marks, account should be taken, in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, of the fact that, in the case of a ‘family’ or ‘series’ of trade marks, a likelihood of confusion results from the fact that the consumer may be mistaken as to the provenance or origin of goods or services covered by the trade mark applied for and consider, erroneously, that the latter trade mark is part of that family or series of marks.

(see paras 53-54)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Privileges and immunities of the European Communities – Officials and servants of the Communities – Domicile for tax purposes of the spouse of a European Union official not separately engaged in a gainful occupation

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 14, first para.)

Summary

The first paragraph of Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities must be interpreted as meaning that the spouse of a person who, solely because that person enters the service of the European Union, establishes his residence in the territory of a Member State other than his Member State of domicile for tax purposes at the time when that person entered the service of the European Union is regarded as having maintained his domicile for tax purposes in the latter Member State if he is not separately engaged in a gainful occupation.

(see para. 22, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences – Directive 97/13 – Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/13, Art. 6)

Summary

Article 6 of Directive 97/13 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State introducing a fee imposed on holders of general authorisations, calculated annually and on the basis of the gross operating income of the chargeable operators, which seeks to cover the administrative costs relating to the issue, management, control and enforcement of those authorisations, to the extent that the combined revenue received by that Member State by way of such a fee does not exceed all of those administrative costs, which it is a matter for the national court to ascertain.

Those payments must be based on objective, non-discriminatory and transparent criteria. However, Directive 97/13 cannot be interpreted to the effect that there must be an exact correlation between the amount of the fee imposed on a chargeable operator and the costs actually incurred by the national authority responsible for management of the general authorisation system and relating to that operator for a specific period, given that no provision of Directive 97/13 requires such a correlation.

(see paras 20, 28, 35, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Income tax

(Art. 39 EC)

Summary

Article 39 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national income tax legislation according to which allowances, granted to a civil servant of a Member State working in another Member State in order to compensate for a loss of purchasing power at the place of secondment, are not taken into account in determining the tax rate applicable in the first Member State to the other income of the taxpayer or of his spouse, whereas equivalent allowances granted to a civil servant of that other Member State working in the territory of the first Member State are taken into account for the purposes of determining that tax rate.

(see para. 43, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Air transport – Directive 2002/30 – Noise-related operating restrictions at European Union airports – Definition of operating restrictions

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/30, Art. 2(e))

Summary

On a proper construction of Article 2(e) of Directive 2002/30 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, an ‘operating restriction’ means a prohibition, absolute or temporary, that prevents the access of a civil subsonic jet aeroplane to a European Union airport. Consequently, national environmental legislation imposing limits on maximum noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying areas located near the airport, does not itself constitute an operating restriction within the meaning of that provision, unless, in view of the relevant economic, technical and legal contexts, it can have the same effect as prohibitions of access to the airport in question.

(see para. 34, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Protection of public health – Food hygiene – Installation of a washbasin in the toilets of an establishment which sells food

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 852/2004, Annex II, Chapter I, paragraph 4)

Summary

Paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Regulation No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as not requiring a washbasin within the meaning of that provision to be used exclusively for washing hands or it to be possible to use the water tap or hand-drying material without touching by hand.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment

–

Waste

–

Landfill of waste

–

Directive 1999/31

–

National legislation providing for the treatment of asbestos-cement waste in landfills for inert waste

–

Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 258 TFEU; Council Directive 1999/31, Arts 2(e), 3(1), 6(d) and 16, and Annex II; Council Decision 2003/33, Annex) (see paras 25-26, 28, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Incorrect transposition of Article 2(e), the first subparagraph of Article 3 and Article 6(d) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) and the provisions of the Annex to Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (OJ 2002 L 11, p. 27) – National legislation establishing a category of ‘inert and hazardous’ wastes, not in accordance with the directive – Landfill of asbestos-cement waste.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that asbestos-cement waste is treated in suitable landfills, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(e), the first subparagraph of Article 3 and Article 6(d) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste and the provisions of the Annex to Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Right, for the proprietor of a trade mark, to prevent the use by a third party of an identical or similar sign for identical or similar goods or services – Use of the trade mark for the purposes of Article 5(1)(b) of the directive – Meaning

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(b))

Summary

Article 5(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, fills packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which is identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark does not itself make use of the sign that is liable to be prohibited under that provision.

Inasmuch as such a service provider enables its customers to make use of signs similar to trade marks, its role cannot be assessed under Directive 89/104 but must be examined, if necessary, from the point of view of other rules of law.

Furthermore, the finding that a trade mark proprietor cannot act, solely on the basis of Directive 89/104, against a service provider does not have the consequence of allowing the customer of that service provider to circumvent the protection given to the proprietor by that directive, by dividing the production process and by awarding different elements of the process to service providers. Those services may be attributed to the customer who therefore remains liable under that directive.

(see paras 35-37, operative part)
Like Article 81 EC, Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty contains substantive provisions governing the assessment by the competition authorities of agreements between undertakings and constituting, therefore, substantive rules of Union law. Such substantive rules cannot, in principle, be applied retroactively, irrespective of whether such application might produce favourable or unfavourable effects for the persons concerned. The principle of legal certainty requires any factual situation normally, when there is no express contrary provision, to be examined in the light of the rules of law in force at the material time. In order to ensure observance of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, the substantive rules of Community law must be interpreted as applying to situations existing before they entered into force only in so far as it follows clearly from their terms, objectives or general scheme that they must be given such effect. However, no clear indications that those two provisions should be applied retroactively are to be found in the wording, or the purpose, or the general system of Article 81 EC, Article 3 of Regulation No 1/2003 or the Act of Accession.

The provisions of Article 81 EC and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a proceeding initiated after 1 May 2004, they do not apply to a cartel which produced effects, in the territory of a Member State which acceded to the Union on 1 May 2004, during periods before that date.

(see paras 49-52, 67, operative part 1)
Case C-392/10

Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam

v

Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)

‛Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Article 15(1) and (3) — Agricultural products — System of export refunds — Differentiated export refund — Conditions for granting — Import of the product into the third country of destination — Payment of import duties’

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Differentiated refund — Conditions for granting — Completion of the customs import formalities in the third country of destination — Definition

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 24; Commission Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 444/2003, Art. 15(1) and (3))

On a proper construction of Article 15(1) and (3) of Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 444/2003, the condition for receipt of a differentiated refund laid down by that article, namely, completion of the customs import formalities, is not satisfied when in the third country of destination, following release for inward processing without collection of import duties, the product undergoes a ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and the product resulting from that processing or working is exported to a third country.

(see para. 30, operative part)

Case C-392/10

Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam

v

Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)

‛Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Article 15(1) and (3) — Agricultural products — System of export refunds — Differentiated export refund — Conditions for granting — Import of the product into the third country of destination — Payment of import duties’

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Differentiated refund — Conditions for granting — Completion of the customs import formalities in the third country of destination — Definition

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 24; Commission Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 444/2003, Art. 15(1) and (3))

On a proper construction of Article 15(1) and (3) of Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 444/2003, the condition for receipt of a differentiated refund laid down by that article, namely, completion of the customs import formalities, is not satisfied when in the third country of destination, following release for inward processing without collection of import duties, the product undergoes a ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and the product resulting from that processing or working is exported to a third country.

(see para. 30, operative part)
The concept of plans and programmes which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions, which appears in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as also concerning specific land development plans whose adoption is not compulsory.

A contrary interpretation would have the consequence of restricting considerably the scope of the scrutiny, established by the directive, of the environmental effects of plans and programmes concerning town and country planning of the Member States. Consequently, such an interpretation of that provision, by appreciably restricting the latter’s scope, would compromise, in part, the practical effect of the directive, having regard to its objective, which consists in providing for a high level of protection of the environment.

(see paras 29, 30, 32, operative part 1)