ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Treatment as a single taxable person precludes the members of the group from continuing to submit tax declarations separately and from continuing to be identified, within and outside their group, as individual taxable persons, since the single taxable person alone is authorised to submit such declarations. It follows that, in such a situation, the supplies of services made by a third party to a member of such a group must be considered, for value added tax purposes, to have been made not to that member but to the actual group to which that member belongs.

Articles 2(1), 9 and 11 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that supplies of services from a main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State constitute taxable transactions when the branch belongs to a value added tax group.

Articles 56, 193 and 196 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the main establishment of a company in a third country supplies services for consideration to a branch of that company in a Member State and where the branch belongs to a group of persons whom it is possible to regard as a single taxable person for value added tax purposes in that Member State, that group, as the purchaser of those services, becomes liable for the value added tax payable.

Article 196 of Directive 2006/112 provides that, as an exception to the general rule in Article 193 of that Directive, according to which value added tax is payable in a Member State by a taxable person carrying out a taxable supply of services, value added tax is payable by the taxable person to whom those services are supplied where the services referred to in Article 56 of that directive are supplied by a taxable person which is not established in that Member State.

The supply of those services in such a situation constitutes a taxable transaction, under Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112, and the group to which the branch receiving those services belongs is deemed, for value added tax purposes, to be the person to whom those services are supplied.

(see paras 34, 35, 37, 38, operative part 2)
2.

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Unreliable controls — Disallowance by the Fund (Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 20; Commission Regulation No 796/2004, Art. 6(2)) (see para. 77)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case C‑641/13 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeals — Cohesion fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Award criteria — Experience of previous works — Criteria for qualitative selection’

Approximation of laws — Public procurement procedures — Award of contracts — The most economically advantageous tender — Award criteria — Experience of previous works — Not permissible (Council Directive 93/37, Art. 30) (see paras 34-38)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 31 of 01.02.2014

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case C‑641/13 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeals — Cohesion fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Award criteria — Experience of previous works — Criteria for qualitative selection’

Approximation of laws — Public procurement procedures — Award of contracts — The most economically advantageous tender — Award criteria — Experience of previous works — Not permissible (Council Directive 93/37, Art. 30) (see paras 34-38)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 31 of 01.02.2014
Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement which relates to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States who had the status of political refugee in the territory of the other signatory State, which was concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and which is not listed in Annex III to that regulation does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees who were repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and the regulation entered into force.

The principles established in the judgment of 7 February 1991 in Rönfeldt are derived from the notion that the person concerned was entitled to entertain a legitimate expectation that he would be able to benefit from the provisions of a bilateral convention which alone was applicable to him on the date when he decided to move to another Member State.

Accordingly, in circumstances an essential feature of which is that the persons concerned left a Member State for their State of origin six years before the bilateral agreement was concluded, those persons could not entertain a legitimate expectation that they would be able to benefit from the provisions of the bilateral agreement as it had not yet been concluded on the date of their repatriation to their State of origin.

(see paras 41, 42, 45, operative part)
Article 6(1) of Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is found that products belonging to the same group or forming part of the same production series, such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, have a potential defect, such a product may be classified as defective without there being any need to establish that that product has such a defect.

In the light of their function and the particularly vulnerable situation of patients using such devices, the safety requirements for those devices which such patients are entitled to expect are particularly high. Moreover, the potential lack of safety which would give rise to liability on the part of the producer stems, for such products, from the abnormal potential for damage which those products might cause to the person concerned.

(see paras 39, 40, 43, operative part 1)
Under Article 13(2) TEU, each EU institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. That provision reflects the principle of institutional balance, characteristic of the institutional structure of the European Union, a principle which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions.

As regards the Commission’s power of legislative initiative under the ordinary legislative procedure, it follows from Article 17(2) TEU in conjunction with Articles 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU that, just as it is, as a rule, for the Commission to decide whether or not to submit a legislative proposal and, as the case may be, to determine its subject-matter, objective and content, the Commission has the power, as long as the Council has not acted, to alter its proposal or even, if need be, withdraw it. That power of withdrawal cannot, however, confer upon that institution a right of veto in the conduct of the legislative process, a right which would be contrary to the principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance. If the Commission, after submitting a proposal under the ordinary legislative procedure, decides to withdraw that proposal, it must state to the Parliament and the Council the grounds for the withdrawal, which, in the event of challenge, have to be supported by cogent evidence or arguments.

Where an amendment planned by the Parliament and the Council distorts the proposal for a legislative act in a manner which prevents achievement of the objectives pursued by the proposal and which, therefore, deprives it of its raison d’être, the Commission is entitled to withdraw it. It may, however, do so only after having due regard, in the spirit of sincere cooperation which, pursuant to Article 13(2) TEU, must govern relations between EU institutions in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure, to the concerns of the Parliament and the Council underlying their intention to amend its proposal. In those circumstances, neither the fact that the Commission has not made use of the power, provided for in Articles 3(2) and 11(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, to request a vote of the Council on the proposal nor the fact that the decision to withdraw the proposal has been adopted on the very day that the Parliament and the Council were on the verge of formalising their agreement on it can be regarded as amounting to a breach by the Commission of the principle of sincere cooperation.

(see paras 74-76, 83, 106)
2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 120000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C‑297/08, EU:C:2010:115), from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Commission v Italy (C‑297/08, EU:C:2010:115) is complied with;
Case C‑346/13

Ville de Mons

v

Base Company SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from

the cour d’appel de Mons)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 13 — Fee for rights to install facilities — Scope — Municipal regulations making owners of mobile telephone transmission pylons and masts subject to payment of a tax’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 6 October 2015

Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Electronic communications networks and services — Authorisation — Directive 2002/20 — Fee for rights to install facilities — Meaning — Tax imposed on owners of mobile telephone transmission pylons or masts which it was not possible to place on an existing site — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/20, Art. 13)

Article 13 of Directive 2002/20 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a tax being imposed on the owner of free-standing structures, such as transmission pylons or masts intended to support the antennas required for the functioning of the mobile telecommunication network, and which it was not possible to place on an existing site.

Although a tax is imposed on owners of transmission pylons or masts intended to support antennas necessary for the proper functioning of the mobile telecommunications network, which constitute physical infrastructure enabling provision of electronic communications networks and services, it does not appear that that tax has the characteristics of a fee which is imposed on undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services in return for the right to install facilities.

In addition, the trigger for that tax, which is imposed on any owner of transmission pylons or masts, whether or not it is the holder of an authorisation granted under Directive 2002/20, does not appear to be linked to the general authorisation procedure entitling the undertakings to provide electronic communications networks or services, a matter which is, however, for the referring court to determine.

(see paras 22-24, operative part)
Case C‑454/13

Proximus SA

v

Commune d’Etterbeek

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Articles 12 and 13 — Administrative charges — Fee for rights to install facilities — Scope — Municipal legislation — Charge on mobile telephony antennae’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 December 2015

Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Electronic communications networks and services — Authorisation — Directive 2002/20 — Taxes and charges applicable to undertakings providing electronic communications services or networks — Concept — Charge on the owners of rights over mobile telephony antennae — Included — Conditions

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/20, Arts 12 and 13)

Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a charge being imposed on any natural or legal persons who are proprietors of a right in rem over, or of a right to operate, a mobile telephony antenna.

Although that charge is imposed on all natural or legal persons who are proprietors of a right in rem over, or of a right to operate, a mobile telephony antenna, which constitutes physical infrastructure enabling the provision of electronic communications networks and services, it does not appear that that charge has the characteristics of a fee which is imposed on undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services in return for the right to install facilities. Furthermore, the trigger for that charge does not appear to be linked to a general authorisation procedure entitling the undertakings to provide electronic communications networks and services, although that is a matter to be determined by the national court.

(see paras 26, 28, 29, operative part)
46

Accordingly, the answer to the first and second questions is that Article 13(5) of Directive 2003/9 is to be interpreted as meaning, where a Member State has opted to grant the material reception conditions in the form of financial allowances or vouchers, that those allowances must be provided from the time the application for asylum is made, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(1) of that directive, and must meet the minimum standards set out in Article 13(2) thereof. That Member State must ensure that the total amount of the financial allowances covering the material reception conditions is sufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living and adequate for the health of applicants and capable of ensuring their subsistence, enabling them in particular to find housing, having regard, if necessary, to the preservation of the interests of persons having specific needs, pursuant to Article 17 of that directive. The material reception conditions laid down in Article 14(1), (3), (5) and (8) of Directive 2003/9 do not apply to the Member States where they have opted to grant those conditions in the form of financial allowances only. Nevertheless, the amount of those allowances must be sufficient to enable minor children to be housed with their parents, so that the family unity of the asylum seekers may be maintained.
10

Article 1 of the Law of 20 February 1939 on the protection of the title and profession of architect (loi du 20 février 1939 sur la protection du titre et de la profession d’architecte; Moniteur belge of 25 March 1939, p. 1942), as amended by the Law of 21 November 2008 transposing Directives 2005/36/EC and 2006/100/EC and amending the Laws of 20 February 1939 on the protection of the title and profession of architect and of 26 June 1963 creating the Ordre des architectes (loi du 21 novembre 2008 transposant les directives 2005/36/CE et 2006/100/CE et modifiant les lois des 20 février 1939 sur la protection du titre et de la profession d’architecte et 26 juin 1963 créant un Ordre des architectes; Moniteur belge of 11 February 2009, p. 11596) (‘the Law of 20 February 1939’), provides: ‘§ 1. No one may use the title of architect … unless he holds a diploma establishing that he has successfully completed the examinations required to obtain that diploma. § 2. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 4 and Articles 7 and 12 of this Law, Belgian citizens and nationals of other Member States of the European Community, or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3; “the EEA Agreement”)], may use the title of architect in Belgium if they hold a diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications referred to in Annex 1(b) to this Law, as amended by the updates published in the Official Journal of the European Union, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 21(7) of [Directive 2005/36]. Those updates shall be published in their entirety, in the form of an official notice in the Moniteur belge. § 2/1. The Belgian State shall recognise the evidence of formal qualifications as an architect listed in Annex 2(a) issued by the other Member States, and attesting a course of training which began no later than the reference academic year referred to in that Annex, even if that evidence does not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Annex 1(a). The Belgian State shall, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of an architect, give such evidence the same effect on its territory as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which it itself issues. … § 2/2. Without prejudice to paragraph 2/1, the Belgian State shall recognise certificates issued to nationals of Member States by the Member States which have enacted rules governing the access to and pursuit of the activities of an architect as of the following dates: … The certificates referred to in the first subparagraph [of paragraph 2/2] shall certify that the holder was authorised, no later than the respective date, to use the professional title of architect, and that he has actually been engaged, in the context of those rules, in the activities in question for at least three consecutive years during the five years preceding the award of the certificate. …’
13

In those circumstances the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice according to which the entitlement to a minimum period of paid annual leave is lost in its entirety on the death of the worker, namely, not only the entitlement to release from the obligation to work, which can no longer be implemented, but also the entitlement to payment of remuneration in respect of annual leave? 2. Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 to be interpreted as meaning that the entitlement to an allowance in lieu of a minimum period of paid annual leave on termination of the employment relationship attaches to the person of the worker in such a way that that entitlement accrues only to him, in order to enable him to realise at a later date the purposes of rest and leisure associated with the granting of paid annual leave? 3. Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 to be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the protection of the safety and health of workers, the employer is obliged, when organising working time, actually to grant the worker leave by the end of the calendar year or, at the latest, by the end of a carry-over period applicable to the employment relationship, regardless of whether or not the worker has submitted an application for leave?’
7

Article 38 of Regulation No 1260/1999 provided: ‘(1) Without prejudice to the Commission’s responsibility for implementing the general budget of the European Communities, Member States shall take responsibility in the first instance for the financial control of assistance. To that end, the measures they take shall include: (a) verifying that management and control arrangements have been set up and are being implemented in such a way as to ensure that Community funds are being used efficiently and correctly; … (e) preventing, detecting and correcting irregularities, notifying these to the Commission, in accordance with the rules, and keeping the Commission informed of the progress of administrative and legal proceedings; … (h) recovering any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity detected and, where appropriate, charging interest on late payments. … (3) The Commission and the Member States shall on the basis of bilateral administrative arrangements cooperate to coordinate plans, methods and implementation of checks so as to maximise the usefulness of those carried out. They shall immediately exchange the results of the checks carried out. At least once a year and, in any event, before the annual review provided for in Article 34(2) the following shall be examined and evaluated: … (c) the financial impact of the irregularities noted, the steps already taken or still required to correct them and, where necessary, adjustments to the management and control systems. (4) Following this examination and evaluation and without prejudice to the measures to be taken immediately by the Member State under this Article and Article 39, the Commission may make observations, particularly regarding the financial impact of any irregularities detected. These observations shall be addressed to the Member State and the managing authority of the assistance concerned. The observations shall be accompanied, where necessary, by requests for corrective measures to remedy the management shortcomings found and correct those irregularities detected which have not already been corrected. The Member State shall have the opportunity to comment on these observations. … (5) Without prejudice to this Article, the Commission, after due verification, may suspend all or part of an interim payment if it finds that the expenditure concerned is linked to a serious irregularity which has not been corrected and that immediate action is needed. The Commission shall inform the Member State concerned of the action taken and the reasons for it. If, after five months, the reasons for the suspension remain or the Member State concerned has not notified the Commission of the measures taken to correct the serious irregularity, the provisions laid down under Article 39 shall apply. …’