ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts — Directive 71/305 — Derogations from common rules — Conditions — Refusal by a body within a Member State, during the procedure provided for under national legislation, to give its approval for a public works project — Refusal not an unforeseeable event within the meaning of the directive — (Council Directive 71/305, as amended by Directive 89/440, Art. 5(3)(c))

Summary

The possibility under Article 9(d) of Directive 71/305 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, in its original version, and under Article 5(3)(c) of the version resulting from the amendment by Directive 89/440 of bypassing the tendering procedure in order to apply the negotiated procedure is available only if a number of conditions are satisfied concurrently, one of which is the occurrence of an unforeseeable event. If one of those conditions is not satisfied, use of the negotiated procedure will not be justified.

The fact that a body in a Member State which must, in the procedure for approval of public works projects provided for under national legislation, approve a project may, before expiry of the period laid down for that purpose, raise objections for reasons which it is entitled to put forward cannot constitute an unforeseeable event.

A Member State whose competent authorities, after deciding not to award a public works contract by open procedure by reason of the delay resulting from the refusal by a body to approve the work plans originally envisaged, award a contract for partial work by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice, will therefore be in breach of its obligations under the directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Recognition and enforcement — Procedure — Application for an enforcement order — Documents to be produced — Service of the judgment for which an enforcement order is sought — Production after the application has been lodged — Whether permissible — Conditions — (Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 47(1))

Summary

Article 47(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the domestic procedural rules of the State in which application is made so permit, proof of service of the judgment delivered in the State of origin may be produced after the application has been made, in particular during the course of appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the party against whom enforcement is sought, provided that that party is given a reasonable period of time in which to satisfy the judgment voluntarily and that the party seeking enforcement bears all costs unnecessarily incurred.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations ° Consideration by the Court of the merits ° Situation to be taken into account ° Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Environment ° Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment ° Directive 85/337 ° Subjection to assessment of projects of the classes listed in Annex II ° Discretion of the Member States ° Extent and limits

(Council Directive 83/337, Art. 4(2))

3. Member States ° Obligations ° Failure to fulfil ° Failure to fulfil specific obligations arising under a directive and failure to fulfil the general obligation arising under Article 5 of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Arts 5 and 169)

Summary

1. In proceedings brought under Article 169 of the Treaty, the question whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations must be examined on the basis of the position in which the Member State found itself at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.

2. Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment provides that projects of the classes listed in Annex II to the directive are to be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require and that Member States may, to this end, specify certain types of projects as being subject to an assessment or establish the criteria and/or thresholds necessary to determine which of the projects of the classes concerned are to be subject to an assessment. That provision must be interpreted as meaning that it does not empower the Member States to exclude generally and definitively one or more classes subject to possible assessment, since the criteria and/or the thresholds mentioned are not designed to exempt in advance from that obligation certain whole classes of projects listed in Annex II which may be envisaged on the territory of a Member State, but only to facilitate the examination of the actual characteristics exhibited by a given project in order to determine whether it is subject to that obligation.

3. Where a Member State has failed to fulfil its specific obligations under a directive, no purpose is served by considering the question whether it has thereby also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Turnover taxes ° Common system of value added tax ° Economic activities within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive ° Purchase and sale of securities in the course of the management of a charitable trust ° Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(2))

Summary

The concept of economic activities, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, is to be interpreted as not including an activity that consists in the purchase and sale of shares and other securities by a trustee in the course of the management of the assets of a charitable trust.

Although the fact that such a trust does not have the status of a professional dealer in securities does not necessarily mean that an activity of the kind at issue cannot, in some cases, be treated as an economic activity, in view of the fact that Article 4 confers a very wide scope on value added tax, such an activity is not constituted by the mere exercise of the right of ownership consisting in the acquisition and sale of financial holdings in other undertakings by a trust which manages the assets that it holds, in the same way as a private investor, and whose investment activities consist essentially in those transactions with a view to maximizing the dividends or capital yields intended to provide the means for achieving its non-commercial objectives.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture ° Approximation of laws on health policy ° Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat ° Directive 85/73 ° Fee levels fixed by Decision 88/408 ° Part of the fee connected with cutting operations ° Limitation to the quantities of meat actually boned or cut in the cutting plant

(Council Directive 85/73; Council Decision 88/408, Art. 3(1))

Summary

Article 3(1) of Decision 88/408 on the fee levels for health inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to Directive 85/73 on the financing thereof is to be interpreted as meaning that the part of the fee covering controls and inspections connected with cutting operations is payable only in respect of meat which is actually boned or cut during the production stage between the slaughter of the animal and the storage of the meat, and not in respect of all the meat which is present in the cutting plant, whether or not it is boned or cut there.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Indirect taxes on the raising of capital ° Grant of an interest-free loan to a company ° Chargeability to capital duty ° Permissible

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 4(2)(b))

2. Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Indirect taxes on the raising of capital ° Scope ° Direct taxes on company income ° Excluded ° A matter for the Member States

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 10)

Summary

1. Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as applying, where a company benefits from an interest-free loan, to the amount of interest saved.

The grant of an interest-free loan to a company, by allowing it to have capital available without having to bear the cost, leads to an increase in its assets as a result of the saving in interest and is likely, by strengthening its economic potential, to increase the value of the company' s shares.

2. Article 10 of Directive 69/335 does not preclude the levying of income tax on a parent company which has granted an interest-free loan to one of its subsidiaries, on the basis of interest fixed after the event. The directive is intended to abolish indirect taxes other than capital duty which display the same characteristics as capital duty itself, and it does not affect direct taxes, such as company income tax, which are a matter for the Member States themselves.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Tax provisions - Internal taxation - Import surcharge on port duty - Characterization as an internal tax and not a charge having effect equivalent to a customs duty - Criteria

(EC Treaty, Arts 9, 12 and 95)

2 Tax provisions - Internal taxation - Import surcharge on port duty - Discrimination between domestic products and products imported from another Member State - Prohibition - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 95)

3 Tax provisions - Internal taxation - Charges incompatible with Community law - Recovery - Limitation period - Application of national law - Whether permissible - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 95)

Summary

4 An import surcharge levied on a general goods duty payable for the use of a Member State's commercial ports must be assessed in the light of Article 95 and not Articles 9 to 13 of the Treaty, where the general duty to which the surcharge is added forms part of a general system of internal dues applying systematically to categories of products according to objective criteria applied without regard to the origin of the products and the surcharge is an integral part of the duty itself and is not a separate duty. That last condition is satisfied if the amount of the surcharge is expressed as a percentage of the duty and the surcharge and duty are levied on the same legal basis, at the same time, in accordance with the same criteria and through the same authorities and the revenue raised is paid to the same recipients.

5 It is contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty for a Member State to impose a 40% import surcharge on a general duty levied on goods loaded, unloaded, or otherwise taken on board or landed within its ports or in the deep-water approach channels to its ports where goods are imported by ship from another Member State.

Differential taxation where the criterion for charging a higher rate is the importation itself and where, therefore, domestic products are by definition excluded from the heaviest taxation cannot be regarded as compatible with Community law.

6 Application to a claim for repayment based on breach of Article 95 of a rule of national law under which proceedings for recovery of charges unduly paid are time-barred after a period of five years is not contrary to Community law, even if the effect of that rule is to prevent, in whole or in part, the repayment of those charges.

The laying down of reasonable limitation periods, which is an application of the fundamental principle of legal certainty, cannot be regarded as rendering virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.
Joined Cases C-171/94 and C-172/94





Albert Merckx and Patrick Neuhuys

v

Ford Motors Company Belgium SA





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles)

«(Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses – Concept of a transfer – Transfer of a dealership)»

Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 6 July 1993

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 7 March 1996

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social Policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees' rights – Directive 77/187 – Scope – Transfer – Concept – Transfer of a motor vehicle dealership without transferring assets and without a direct contractual relationship between the new and the old dealer, together with an assignment of the latter's business – Included

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 1(1))

2.. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees' rights – Directive 77/187 – Employee opposed to the transfer of his contract to the transferee – Whether permissible – Fate of the contract with the transferor – Determined by the Member States – Termination of the contract following a change in the level of remuneration – Employer responsible for the termination

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3(1) and 4(2))

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

28 March 1996

((Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Communities – Additional motor insurance premiums))

In Case C-191/94,

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité, represented by Jean-Jacques Masquelin, of the Brussels Bar; of the Belgian State, represented by Jan Devadder, Director of Administration at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, acting as Agent, assisted by Marc Libert, of the Brussels Bar; and of the Commission, represented by David Gilmour, at the hearing on 28 November 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 February 1996,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Rules on vehicle model-year dates discouraging parallel imports

(EC Treaty, Art. 30)

Summary

Article 30 of the Treaty precludes national legislation concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles which causes the administrative authorities and traders of the Member State in question to consider that, where two motor vehicles of the same model and make are sold in that Member State after 30 June, only the vehicle which was the subject of a parallel import would be prohibited from holding itself out as being of the following model year. Such rules are likely to discourage the sale of the vehicles concerned in so far as, although they are the same model as the others, they are presented as being of an earlier year and accordingly are at a discount on resale or where compensation is payable in the event of a claim.

In addition, such rules cannot be justified under requirements relating to consumer protection or fairness of transactions. They do not guarantee that the consumer will be informed with certainty either of the differences in the characteristics of two vehicles of different model years or that two vehicles of the same model and model year will be identically manufactured.
Keywords



Keywords

Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations not disputed — (EC Treaty, Art. 169)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Approximation of laws - Quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life and quality required of shellfish waters - Directives 78/659 and 79/923 - Need for exact transposition by the Member States

(Council Directives 78/659 and 79/923)

2 Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to implement - Justification - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

3 Approximation of laws - Quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life and quality required of shellfish waters - Directives 78/659 and 79/923 - Obligation to establish specific programmes in order to reduce pollution

(Council Directives 78/659, Art. 5, and 79/923, Art. 5)

Summary

4 Directives 78/659 and 79/923 seek to protect human health through the monitoring of the quality of waters which support, or could support, fish suitable for human consumption or shellfish directly edible by man. This objective implies that in all cases where non-implementation of the measures required could endanger human health those concerned must be in a position to rely on mandatory rules in order to be able to assert their rights. Correct transposition therefore requires the adoption of measures which are indisputably binding.

5 A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.

6 It follows clearly from the wording of Article 5 of Directives 78/659 and 79/923 as well as from the detailed arrangements for monitoring water quality laid down by those directives that Member States have an obligation to establish specific programmes in order to reduce pollution of fresh waters and shellfish waters within five and six years respectively.

Neither, with regard to Directive 78/659, general water-purification programmes designed to reduce water pollution caused by effluent nor, with regard to Directive 79/923, the finding, through the taking of samples, that shellfish waters meet the requirements of that directive can exempt a Member State from the obligation to establish specific programmes in accordance with Article 5 of those directives.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Contrived dispute or request for interpretation of provisions of Community law manifestly inapplicable in the main proceedings

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2 Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover tax - Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax paid - Obligations of the taxable person - Possession of an invoice - Invoice - Definition - Possibility for the Member States to allow as an invoice documents other than the original invoice

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 18(1)(a) and 22(3))

Summary

3 Provided that the questions submitted to it for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court gives its ruling without, in principle, having to look into the circumstances in which a national court was prompted to submit the questions and envisages applying the provision of Community law which it has asked the Court to interpret.

The matter would be different only if it were apparent either that the procedure provided for in Article 177 of the Treaty had been diverted from its true purpose and was being used in fact to lead the Court to give a ruling by means of a contrived dispute, or that the provision of Community law referred to the Court for interpretation was manifestly incapable of applying.

4 In the context of the right of a person subject to value added tax to deduct from the tax which he is liable to pay the amount of input tax paid, Article 18(1)(a) and Article 22(3) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes permit the Member States, who are given the power to determine the rules relating to supervision of the exercise of the right to deduct input tax and in particular the manner in which taxable persons are to establish that right, to regard as an invoice not only the original but also any other document serving as an invoice that fulfils the criteria determined by the Member States themselves, and confer on them the power to require production of the original invoice in order to establish the right to deduct input tax, as well as the power, where a taxable person no longer holds the original, to admit other evidence that the transaction in respect of which the deduction is claimed actually took place.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Legislation applicable - Definition of employed and self-employed for the purposes of Articles 14a and 14c of Regulation No 1408/71 - Determination according to the social security legislation of the Member State in whose territory the activities are pursued

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 14a and 14c)

Summary

For the purposes of Articles 14a and 14c of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 on the determination of the legislation applicable, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, `employed' and `self-employed' are to be understood to refer to activities which are regarded as such for the purposes of the social security legislation of the Member State in whose territory those activities are pursued.

Since the wording of Article 13(1) of the regulation indicates that Title II concerns, in particular, employed and self-employed persons as defined in Article 1(a) thereof, a logical and consistent interpretation of the scope ratione personae of the regulation and of the system of rules of conflict of laws which it establishes requires `employed' and `self-employed' in Title II of the regulation to be interpreted in the light of the definitions in Article 1(a) thereof. Whether a person is to be regarded as an employed person or as a self-employed person for the purposes of that article depends on the national social security scheme to which he is affiliated, and only the definitions used by that scheme, which may differ from those used in employment law, must be applied.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Question aimed at enabling the national court to assess the compatibility with Community law of a national provision on which the decision in the main proceedings does not depend

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2 Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Provisions of the Treaty - Inapplicable to a situation purely internal to a Member State

(EC Treaty, Arts 48, 52 and 59)

Summary

3 The Court has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical and the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.

That is the case where the Court is asked to supply the national court with a ruling on the interpretation of Community law so as to enable the latter to assess the compatibility with Community law of a provision of national law, where the information available to the Court does not indicate that it will have to be applied by the national court when giving a decision on the main proceedings.

4 Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the Treaty do not apply to a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State, such as that where a company whose seat is in one Member State supplies services, without using workers from other Member States or even envisaging using such workers, to a public body established in that same Member State.