ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-487/11

Laimonis Treimanis

v

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa)

‛Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 7(1) — Relief from import duties on personal property — The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ — Motor vehicle imported into the European Union — Vehicle used by a member of the family of the importing owner’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 6 September 2012

European Union law — Interpretation — Provision making no express reference to the law of the Member States — Autonomous and uniform interpretation Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Relief from import duties — Concept of personal property — The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ — Private motor vehicle used free of charge by a member of the importer’s family — Included — Conditions (Council Regulation No 918/83, Arts 2 and 7(1))

See the text of the decision. (see para. 22) Articles 2 and 7(1) of Regulation No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty must be interpreted as meaning that a private motor vehicle imported from a third country into the customs territory of the European Union may be imported free of import duties provided that the importer has actually transferred his normal place of residence to the customs territory of the European Union, which is a matter for the national court to determine. A motor vehicle used free of charge by a member of that importer’s family, that is by a person living under the same roof as the importer or mainly dependent on him, a matter for the national court to determine, is to be regarded as being intended for meeting the needs of the importer’s household, and that use does not result in loss of entitlement to the relief in question. (see para. 39 and operative part)

Case C-487/11

Laimonis Treimanis

v

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa)

‛Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 7(1) — Relief from import duties on personal property — The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ — Motor vehicle imported into the European Union — Vehicle used by a member of the family of the importing owner’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 6 September 2012

European Union law — Interpretation — Provision making no express reference to the law of the Member States — Autonomous and uniform interpretation Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Relief from import duties — Concept of personal property — The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ — Private motor vehicle used free of charge by a member of the importer’s family — Included — Conditions (Council Regulation No 918/83, Arts 2 and 7(1))
Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Criteria — Characteristics and objective properties of the product

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Criteria — Heading which provides the most specific description preferred to headings providing a more general description

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature — Requirement that they be compatible with the provisions of the Combined Nomenclature

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Romper bags suitable for young children not exceeding 86 cm — Classification under subheading 6209 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature — Romper bags suitable for young children exceeding 86 cm — Classification under subheadings 6211 42 90 of the Combined Nomenclature

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1719/2005, Subheadings 6209 20 00 and 6211 42 90)
Article 5(7)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, allows Member States to develop their tax law in such a way that businesses which, owing to the fact that they are engaged in an activity which is exempt from value added tax, cannot deduct the tax that they have paid on acquiring their business goods are not placed at a disadvantage as compared with competitors engaged in the same activity who use goods which they have obtained without paying value added tax, by producing the goods themselves or, more generally, by obtaining them ‘in the course of [their] business’. In order to make those competitors subject to the same tax burden as businesses which have acquired their goods from a third party, Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive gives Member States the option of treating the application, for the purposes of the exempt activities of the business, of goods obtained in the course of business as a supply of goods made for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) and Article 5(1) of that directive, and of making that application subject to value added tax.

In order for it to be possible for that option, which was reproduced in Article 18 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, to be used in a way which truly eliminates all inequalities, in relation to value added tax, between taxable persons who have acquired their goods from another taxable person and those who have acquired them in the course of their business, the terms ‘goods produced, constructed, extracted, processed, … in the course of such business’ must be construed as covering not only goods entirely produced, constructed, extracted or processed by the business concerned itself, but also goods constructed, extracted or processed by a third party with materials provided by that business.

In order for a taxable person to be subject, consistently with the aim of Article 5(7)(a), to the same tax burden as competitors who carry out the same exempt activity using goods which they have acquired in their entirety from a third party, it must be possible for the treatment option available under that provision to be extended to all goods completed or improved by the third party and, accordingly, to cause value added tax to be levied on the basis of the overall value of those goods.

(see paras 26-28)
By maintaining different rules for the taxation of income from capital and movable property according to whether it is earned by resident investment companies or non-resident investment companies with no permanent establishment in the Member State, that Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU, and Articles 31 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

Tax legislation which does not grant certain benefits on the taxation of income earned by non-resident investment companies with no permanent establishment in the Member State, whereas that legislation does grant such benefits to income earned by resident investment companies, establishes unfavourable treatment for non-resident companies.

For such difference of treatment to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on free movement of capital and freedom of establishment, that difference of treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest.

However, non-resident investment companies in receipt of that income find themselves in a situation comparable to that of resident companies as regards the risk of a series of charges to tax on income from capital and movable property, so that non-resident recipient companies cannot be treated differently from resident recipient companies.

Moreover, such a restriction is not justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. First, it is not justified by the need to ensure a balanced allocation of the power to tax, since, if a Member State has chosen not to tax recipient companies established in its territory in respect of income of this kind, it cannot rely on the argument that there is a need to ensure a balanced allocation between the Member States of the power to tax in order to justify the taxation of recipient companies established in another Member State.

Second, nor is such a measure justified by reasons connected with the coherence of the tax system, given that non-resident investment companies cannot, in any circumstances, enjoy exemption in respect of income from capital and movable property that they receive from companies established in the Member State of taxation or benefit from the setting off or reimbursement of withholding tax, irrespective of the guarantees that they might be able to provide concerning financial supervision.

(see paras 38-40, 45, 51, 74-76, 80, 81, 83, operative part 1)
In this respect, the Schienen-Control Kommission (Austrian Rail Supervisory Commission) must be regarded as a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU.

To determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which is a question governed by EU law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent.

Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Part II of Annex II to, Regulation No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the information on main connecting services must, in addition to scheduled departure times, also include delays to or cancellations of those connecting services, whichever railway undertaking operates them.

Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Part II of Annex II to, Regulation No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations and Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49, must be interpreted as meaning that the infrastructure manager is required to make available to railway undertakings, in a non-discriminatory manner, real time data relating to trains operated by other railway undertakings, in so far as those trains constitute main connecting services within the meaning of Part II of Annex II to Regulation No 1371/2007.

That information is necessary for any railway undertaking to be in a position to fulfil the obligations it has under Regulation No 1371/2007.

Moreover, to ensure fair competition on the passenger rail transport market, and not to run counter both to the objective of greater integration of the railway sector, mentioned in recital 1 in the preamble to Directive 2001/14, and to the obligation of providing passengers with information, it must be ensured that all railway undertakings are in a position to provide passengers with a comparable quality of service, irrespective of the size of the undertaking’s network.

(see paras 46, 47, 50, operative part 2)
Only the storage of grape musts of Community origin may be the subject of such aid. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 32(2) of that regulation, such aid is granted subject to the conclusion by the producer, with one or more intervention agencies, of one or more storage contracts, the validity of which is a condition for the eligibility of that aid.

As regards the system of aid for the private storage of grape musts established by Regulation No 822/87 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as amended by Regulation No 2253/88, where the non-existence of the company alleged to have sold grape musts means that the Community origin of the grape musts cannot be established, the producer who has acquired those grape musts from that company cannot, on any view, benefit from a storage aid under Regulation No 822/87.

The non-compliance with the obligation regarding the Community origin of the grape musts under the system of aid for the private storage thereof established by Regulation No 822/87 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as amended by Regulation No 2253/88, comes under the concept of ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/95, on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.

In that regard, Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 1059/83 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must, as amended by Regulation No 2646/1999, cannot constitute a legal basis for the purposes of punishing a breach connected with Community origin. That provision is intended to apply to proceedings concerning irregularities in relation to the performance of a storage contract and which are less serious than those referred to in Article 17(1)(a). On the other hand, Article 17(1)(b) of that regulation cannot be applied to punish serious defects affecting the very validity of a storage contract presented in support of a storage aid application, which directly affect the eligibility of the producer for storage aid.

In the absence of a penalty imposed both by sectoral rules and national rules, such an irregularity cannot be subject to a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95.

However, in circumstances where the irregularities found result in the storage contract on the basis of which the storage aid had been paid not being regarded as having been validly concluded for the purposes of obtaining that aid, the national authorises are required to apply an administrative measure, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which requires repayment of the aid unduly received.

(see paras 45, 52, 58, 62, 67, 72, operative part 2)
Articles167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a company which has acquired land and buildings constructed on that land, for the purpose of demolishing the buildings and developing a residential complex on the land, has the right to deduct the value added tax relating to the acquisition of those buildings, since, in making that acquisition, that company performs an economic activity as a taxable person and that, as soon as it acquired the land and the buildings at issue, the company indicated its intention to demolish the buildings in order to develop a residential complex on that land.

Since those buildings were acquired along with the land on which they had been constructed and that land continues to be used by the company for the purposes of its taxed transactions, the replacement of dilapidated structures with more modern buildings and, consequently, their use for taxable output transactions in no way breaks the direct link between, on the one hand, the input acquisition of the buildings at issue and, on the other, the economic activities carried out thereafter by the taxable person. The acquisition of those buildings and their subsequent destruction with a view to building more modern new ones can, therefore, be regarded as a series of linked transactions for the purposes of subsequent taxable transactions in the same way as the acquisition of new buildings and their direct use.

(see paras 31-33, 35, 36, operative part 1)
Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 98/70 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12, as amended by Directive 2009/30, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in accordance with the objective of promoting the use of biofuels in transport, set for each Member State by Directives 2003/30 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, 2009/28 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77 and 2003/30, and 2009/30, requires petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market also to place on the market, in the same calendar year, a quantity of biofuels by blending them with those products, where this quantity is calculated as a percentage of the total amount of those products which they market annually, and where those percentages comply with the maximum limits set by Directive 98/70.

In that regard, the provisions of Directive 98/70, and in particular Article 5, cannot be interpreted independently of those of Directives 2003/30 and 2009/28, which were in force at the material time in the main proceedings and at the lodging of the request for a preliminary ruling. Indeed, the fact that Directives 2009/28 and 2009/30 (the latter amending Directive 98/70) were adopted and came into force on the same date, and the fact that they, along with Directive 2003/30, form part of a comprehensive package of measures aimed at promoting the production and use of renewable energies indicate that the EU legislature wanted to ensure the necessary consistency between those directives. Directive 2003/30, which, according to Article 1, aimed at promoting the use of biofuels to replace diesel or petrol for transport purposes in each Member State, did not impose any requirements on the Member States in regard to the method of attaining the national indicative targets referred to in Article 3(1), but left them freedom of choice as to the type of measures to be adopted. It is therefore apparent from recital 19 in the preamble to Directive 2003/30 that the Member States had various means at their disposal for achieving the objectives laid down by that directive, including a tax exemption scheme, financial assistance for the processing industry or the establishment of a compulsory minimum percentage of biofuels for oil companies.

The conclusion that Article 5 of Directive 98/70, read in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2003/30, did not preclude a Member State from requiring petroleum companies to place on its market a compulsory percentage of biofuels for transport purposes with a view to achieving the national indicative targets which it had laid down in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/30 applies all the more when Article 5 is read in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2009/28, which, as can be seen from recital 9 and Article 1 thereof, sets mandatory national targets for the overall share of energy from renewable sources in the consumption of energy in transport.

(see paras 37-42, 47, operative part 1)
It is not for the Court of Justice to assign a legal classification to the action brought by the applicant in the main proceedings. In the present case, it is for the applicant to specify the nature and basis of her action, subject to the supervision of the referring court.

EU law must be interpreted as precluding a national system which limits the interest granted on repayment of a tax which was levied in breach of EU law to that accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of that tax.

In the absence of EU legislation, it is for the internal legal order of each Member State to lay down the conditions in which such interest must be paid, particularly the rate of that interest and its method of calculation, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

A national system which limits interest to that accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax unduly levied, does not meet the principle of effectiveness which requires, in a situation of repayment of a tax levied by a Member State in breach of EU law, that the national rules referring in particular to the calculation of interest which may be due should not lead to depriving the taxpayer of adequate compensation for the loss sustained through the undue payment of the tax. That loss depends, inter alia, on the duration of the unavailability of the sum unduly levied in breach of EU law and thus occurs, in principle, during the period between the date of the undue payment of the tax at issue and the date of repayment thereof.

(see paras 23, 26- 29, operative part)
The examination of Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, a provision which gives Member States the option of retaining up to 10% of the component of national ceilings for each product sector in order to make an additional payment for specific types of farming which are important for the protection or enhancement of the environment or for improving the quality and marketing of agricultural products, has disclosed nothing capable of affecting its validity in the light of Article 34 EC.

It is clear that Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 does not itself set different conditions according to Member States or producers, but merely grants all Member States, under the same terms and conditions, a certain discretion for the purpose of making additional payments under the common agricultural policy reform. That authorisation granted to the Member States, first, is strictly limited in scope and subject to a series of conditions of both a procedural and substantive nature and, second, is a temporary measure to facilitate the transition to the single payment scheme. The fact that the adoption of a measure within the framework of the common organisation of the market may affect producers in different ways because of their individual production or local conditions does not constitute discrimination prohibited by the EC Treaty if the measure is determined on the basis of objective criteria which are adapted to meet the needs of the general common organisation of the market. Similarly, the prohibition on discrimination is not concerned with any disparities in treatment which may result, between the Member States, from divergences existing between the legislation of the various Member States, so long as that legislation affects equally all persons subject to it.

(see paras 20, 23, 29, 34, 35, 44, operative part)
With regard to the possibility of taking account, for the purposes of calculating the quantity of the daily penalty payment, of the progressive reduction in the quantity of non-compliant population equivalent, that is to say, population equivalent not collected or not treated, or treated in an unsatisfactory manner in order for account to be taken of progress made by the Member State in complying with the judgment establishing its failure to fulfil its obligations under Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste water treatment, and of the principle of proportionality, account must be taken of the aggravating circumstances established by the Commission.

The penalty payment must not be suspended or reduced before the Member State has adopted all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment establishing its failure to fulfil its obligations and, consequently, compliance with its obligations under Directive 91/271, where that Member State has had more than sufficient time in which to comply fully with that judgment. In designating the entire national territory as a ‘sensitive area’, the national authorities took the view that the bodies of surface water were already affected or liable to be affected in the short term by eutrophication, which leads to the conclusion that the Member State could not be unaware of the need to undertake work to bring its water treatment plants into line with EU law, at least as of the date when the national authorities confirmed that designation to the Commission.

(see paras 48, 51-54)