ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Classification as a special protection area prior to the entry into force of Directive 92/43 — Effects — Obligations of the Member States — Failure to take appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting species — Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4(4); Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(2) and (7)) (see paras 32-34, 39-44)

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; Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3 and 4(1) and (3); Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(2) and (7)) (see paras 38, 49-51, 53, operative part.)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Breach of Articles 3 and 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to take the required steps to avoid the deterioration and pollution of Lake Koroneia (Prefecture of Thessalonika) — Failure to set up a system for the collection and treatment of urban waste water for the agglomeration of Langada.

Operative part

Operative part

1. By not having taken all the required steps to avoid the deterioration of the natural habitats and the habitats of species for which the special area of conservation GR 1220009 was designated and by not having set up a system for the collection and treatment of urban waste water for the agglomeration of Langada, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, as well as its obligations under Articles 3 and 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.

2. The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
By making registration in its territory of new passenger vehicles having their steering equipment on the same side as the direction of the traffic dependent on the repositioning of the steering wheel to the other side, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 2a of Directive 70/311 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers and Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/46 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.

The steering equipment of vehicles is specifically covered by Directive 70/311, Article 2a of which requires the Member States not to prohibit, in particular, the registration of vehicles on grounds relating to their steering equipment if the latter satisfy the requirements of that directive. Indeed, Directives 2007/46 and 70/311 make reference to ‘hand of drive: … left/right’, which must be stated on the information document for the purpose of type-approval of a vehicle. Also, the indication must be made on the certificate of conformity, that the vehicle is ‘adapted’ to traffic on the right or on the left. However, those provisions may not cover fundamental elements of the construction of the vehicle, such as the position of the steering-wheel, but only other elements, such as the vehicles’ lighting and windscreen wiping devices or indirect vision systems. The adaptations that may be required may not relate to the repositioning of the driver’s seat, which would amount to a procedure having a significant impact on the design of the vehicle, contrary to the wording and purpose of Directive 70/311, but solely to procedures having a minimal impact.

Consequently, the position of the driver’s seat, an integral part of the steering equipment of a vehicle, comes within the harmonisation established by Directives 2007/46 and 70/311, so that the Member States may not require, for reasons of safety, with a view to the registration of a new vehicle in their territory, the driver’s seat of that vehicle to be moved to the side opposite the direction of the traffic.

(see paras 39, 43, 45, 47, operative part)
33

In that context, the Administrativen sad Varna decide to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is Article 168(a) of [the VAT Directive] to be interpreted as meaning that, once a taxable person has exercised his option and allocated immovable property constituting capital goods to his business assets, it must be presumed (assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that those goods are used for the purposes of taxable supplies effected by the taxable person? 2. Is Article 168(a) of [the VAT Directive] to be interpreted as meaning that the right of deduction of a tax credit on the purchase of immovable property which is allocated to the business assets of a taxable person arises immediately in the tax period in which the tax became due, regardless of the fact that the property cannot be used in view of the absence of authorisation for its use as required by law? 3. Is an administrative practice such as that of the Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (National Revenue Agency), according to which the right of deduction of a tax credit claimed by persons taxable under the ZDDS on capital goods purchased by them is refused on the grounds that those goods are used for the private purposes of the owners of the companies, without VAT being imposed on this use, consistent with the directive and the case-law on its interpretation? 4. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, does the applicant company have a right of deduction of a tax credit on the purchase of immovable property, namely a maisonette in Sofia?’
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — Commission v Poland

(Case C‑192/11)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Scope of the system of protection — Derogations from the prohibitions laid down by the directive

1. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 2009/147 — Field of application — Species naturally occurring in the wild state in the European territory of the Union — Complete, effective protection necessary (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/147, Art. 1) (see paras 23-25)

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 paras 27, 42)

3. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Implementation by way of administrative practices — Insufficient (Art. 288(3) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/147) (see para. 48)

4. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 2009/147 — Transposition without legislative action — Limits — Management of a common heritage — Faithful transposition by the Member States necessary (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/147) (see paras 56-58)

5. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 2009/147 — Implementation by Member States — Conditions for the grant of derogations from the prohibitions laid down in the directive (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/147, Art. 9) (see paras 72, 73, 75, 78)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7) — Field of application — Protection restricted to species of birds occurring in national territory only — Incorrect definition of the conditions for derogating from the prohibitions laid down by the directive.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to apply national conservation measures to all species of birds naturally occurring in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States and entitled to protection under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and likewise by failing to define correctly the conditions to be met in order to be able to derogate from the prohibitions laid down by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of that directive;
1.

Declares that, by maintaining rules according to which the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings, more than 40% of the assets of which is invested in debt securities, and which are not authorised under Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), are not taxable where those undertakings are established in Belgium, whereas the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in such undertakings established in Norway or Iceland are taxable, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 —

Commission v France



(Case C-145/11)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/82/EC — Veterinary medicinal products — Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product in a number of Member States — Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised — Refusal to approve request by a Member State — Composition and form of the medicinal product

Approximation of laws — Veterinary medicinal products — Directive 2001/82 — Marketing authorisation — Decentralised procedure — Application in conformity with the formal requirements for applications for authorisation — Refusal to approve by a Member State on substantive grounds — Failure to fulfil obligations (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/82, Arts 32 and 33) (see paras 32-39, 43, 45, 46, 48, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 32 and 33 of Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1) — Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation in more than one Member State — Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised — Member State’s refusal to approve based on scientific grounds related to the composition of the medicinal product and the choice of pharmaceutical form — Principle of mutual recognition.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by refusing to approve two requests for marketing authorisation of the medicinal veterinary products CT-Line 15% Premix and CT-Line 15% Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure provided for by Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament of the Council of 31 March 2004, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive;
51

Taking into account all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first and second questions is that the activity of a public authority consisting in the storing, in a database, of data which undertakings are obliged to report on the basis of statutory obligations, in permitting interested persons to search for that data and/or in providing them with print-outs thereof does not constitute an economic activity, and that public authority is not, therefore, to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. The fact that those searches and/or that provision of print-outs are carried out in consideration for remuneration provided for by law and not determined, directly or indirectly, by the entity concerned, is not such as to alter the legal classification of that activity. In addition, when such a public authority prohibits any other use of the data thus collected and made available to the public, by relying upon the sui generis protection granted to it as maker of the database at issue pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 96/9 or upon any other intellectual property right, it also does not exercise an economic activity and is not therefore to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU.
4

Section 403D of the ICTA provides: ‘(1) In determining for the purposes of this Chapter the amounts for any accounting period of the losses and other amounts available for surrender by way of group relief by a non-resident company, no loss or other amount shall be treated as so available except in so far as (a) it is attributable to activities of that company the income and gains from which for that period are, or (were there any) would be, brought into account in computing the company’s chargeable profits for that period for corporation tax purposes, (b) it is not attributable to activities of the company which are made exempt from corporation tax for that period by any double taxation arrangements; and (c) no part of (i) the loss or other amount, or (ii) any amount brought into account in computing it, corresponds to, or is represented in, any amount which, for the purposes of any foreign tax, is (in any period) deductible or otherwise allowable against non-UK profits of the company or any other person. … 3. In this section, “non-UK profits” means, in relation to any person, amounts which (a) are taken for the purposes of any foreign tax to be the amount of the profits, income or gains on which (after allowing for deductions) that person is charged with that tax, and (b) are not amounts corresponding to, and are not represented in, the total profits (of that or any other person) for any accounting period, or amounts taken into account in computing such amounts. … (6) So much of the law of any territory outside the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland] as for the purposes of any foreign tax makes the deductibility of any amount dependent on whether or not it is deductible for tax purposes in the United Kingdom shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section. ...’
14

By its two questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 12 EC, 17 EC, 18 EC, and, where necessary, 39 EC must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the right to the tideover allowance for the benefit of young people looking for their first job conditional upon the person concerned having completed at least six years’ studies in an educational establishment of the host Member State, having regard to the fact that such a condition is too exclusive, in particular inasmuch as it precludes all possibility of that allowance being granted to a young woman, who is a national of another Member State and who, although she has not completed any studies in such an establishment, has married a national of the host Member State, resides with him in that State and is registered as a job seeker with an employment service of the host State. In this regard, the referring court wishes in particular to know whether the circumstances thus characterising the situation must in fact be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether there is a real link between the claimant and the labour market of the host Member State.
10

Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95, which is entitled ‘Information by the processor’, provides: ‘(1) The details of the relevant information to be provided by the processor to the holder pursuant to Article 14(3), sixth indent of [Regulation No 2100/94] may form the object of a contract between the holder and the processor concerned. (2) Where such contract has not been concluded or does not apply, the processor shall, without prejudice to information requirements under other Community legislation or under legislation of Member States, on request of the holder, be required to provide a statement of relevant information to the holder. The following items shall be considered to be relevant: (a) the name of the processor, the place of his domicile and the name and address registered for his business; (b) the fact whether the processor has supplied a service of processing the product of the harvest belonging to one or more varieties of the holder for planting, where the variety or varieties were declared or otherwise known to the processor; (c) if the processor has supplied such service, the amount of the product of the harvest belonging to the variety or varieties concerned, which has been processed for planting, by the processor, and the total amount resulting from that processing; (d) the dates and places of the processing referred to in (c); (e) the name and address of the person or persons to whom he has supplied the service of processing referred to in (c), and the respective amounts. (3) The information under paragraph 2(b), (c), (d) and (e) shall refer to the current marketing year and to one or more of the three preceding marketing years for which the holder has not yet made an earlier request in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 4 or 5; however, the first marketing year to which the information refers, shall be the one in which the first of such requests was made in respect of the variety or varieties and the processor concerned. (4) The provisions of Article 8(4) shall apply mutatis mutandis. ...’
3

Recitals 2, 12, 19, 20 and 23 in the preamble to the Regulation state as follows: ‘(2) The proper functioning of the internal market requires that cross-border insolvency proceedings should operate efficiently and effectively and this Regulation needs to be adopted in order to achieve this objective which comes within the scope of judicial cooperation in civil matters within the meaning of Article 65 of the Treaty. ... (12) This Regulation enables the main insolvency proceedings to be opened in the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests. These proceedings have universal scope and aim at encompassing all the debtor’s assets. To protect the diversity of interests, this Regulation permits secondary proceedings to be opened to run in parallel with the main proceedings. Secondary proceedings may be opened in the Member State where the debtor has an establishment. The effects of secondary proceedings are limited to the assets located in that State. Mandatory rules of coordination with the main proceedings satisfy the need for unity in the Community. ... (19) Secondary insolvency proceedings may serve different purposes, besides the protection of local interests. Cases may arise where the estate of the debtor is too complex to administer as a unit or where differences in the legal systems concerned are so great that difficulties may arise from the extension of effects deriving from the law of the State of the opening to the other States where the assets are located. For this reason the liquidator in the main proceedings may request the opening of secondary proceedings when the efficient administration of the estate so requires. (20) Main insolvency proceedings and secondary proceedings can, however, contribute to the effective realisation of the total assets only if all the concurrent proceedings pending are coordinated. ... In order to ensure the dominant role of the main insolvency proceedings, the liquidator in such proceedings should be given several possibilities for intervening in secondary insolvency proceedings which are pending at the same time. For example, he should be able to propose a restructuring plan or composition or apply for realisation of the assets in the secondary insolvency proceedings to be suspended. ... (23) This Regulation should set out, for the matters covered by it, uniform rules on conflict of laws which replace, within their scope of application, national rules of private international law. Unless otherwise stated, the law of the Member State of the opening of the proceedings should be applicable (lex concursus). This rule on conflict of laws should be valid both for the main proceedings and for local proceedings; the lex concursus determines all the effects of the insolvency proceedings, both procedural and substantive, on the persons and legal relations concerned. It governs all the conditions for the opening, conduct and closure of the insolvency proceedings.’
3

Section 2 of Chapter VII of Directive 2004/18, dealing with the ‘Criteria for qualitative selection’, contains Article 45, entitled ‘Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer’. Paragraph 1 of that article sets out the criteria leading to the automatic exclusion of the candidate or tenderer from a contract, while paragraph 2 of the same article sets out the criteria which may lead to such exclusion. That latter paragraph reads as follows: ‘Any economic operator may be excluded from participation in a contract where that economic operator: (a) is bankrupt or is being wound up, where his affairs are being administered by the court, where he has entered into an arrangement with creditors, where he has suspended business activities or is in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure under national laws and regulations; (b) is the subject of proceedings for a declaration of bankruptcy, for an order for compulsory winding up or administration by the court or of an arrangement with creditors or of any other similar proceedings under national laws and regulations; (c) has been convicted by a judgment which has the force of res judicata in accordance with the legal provisions of the country of any offence concerning his professional conduct; (d) has been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authorities can demonstrate; (e) has not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which he is established or with those of the country of the contracting authority; (f) has not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which he is established or with those of the country of the contracting authority; (g) is guilty of serious misrepresentation in supplying the information required under this Section or has not supplied such information. Member States shall specify, in accordance with their national law and having regard for Community law, the implementing conditions for this paragraph.’