ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 10(c))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 12(1)(b) and (2))

Summary

1. A fee charged for rectification of the land register in the case of the merger of two legal persons falls in principle within the prohibition under Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital against levying taxes, apart from capital duty, in respect of registration or any other formality required before the commencement of business to which a company, firm, association or legal person operating for profit may be subject by reason of its legal form.

Rectification is clearly a formality to which a legal person is made subject by reason of its legal form, since it attests to the transfer of land from one legal person to the other, which is a direct consequence of the merger between them. Although rectification of the land register does not, in a strict sense, appear to be a formality required before the carrying‑out of any business, it is none the less necessary for the carrying‑on of that business, since a legal person’s acquisition of land by means of a merger and takeover is subject to compulsory rectification of the land register.

(see paras 23-25, 27, 29, operative part 1)

2. A fee charged for rectifiction of the land register in the case of a merger between two legal persons, calculated by reference to general and objective criteria, by reference to the value of the subject-matter of the transaction, is objectively linked to the transfer of ownership of land from one legal person to another and may therefore, in derogation from Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, be regarded as a transfer duty authorised by Article 12(1)(b) of that directive, provided it is not higher than those applicable to similar operations in the taxing Member State in accordance with the provisions of Article 12(2) of Directive 69/335.

It is for the national court to examine whether that condition has been fulfilled.

(see paras 34-36, 45, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Value for customs purposes – Transaction value – Determination

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 32(1))

Summary

In order to determine the customs value of imports of computers equipped by the seller with software for one or more operating systems made available by the buyer to the seller free of charge, in accordance with Article 32(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the value of the software must be added to the transaction value of the computers if the value of the software has not been included in the price actually paid or payable for those computers.

The same is true when the national authorities accept as the transaction value, in accordance with Community law, the price of a sale other than that made by the Community purchaser. In such cases, ‘buyer’ for the purposes of that article must be understood to mean the buyer who concluded that other sale.

(see paras 37-38, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) EC and 253 EC) (see para. 30)

2. State aid – Meaning (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 45-46)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first para.) (see paras 48-50)

4. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 90)

5. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defense (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 125 and 131)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 July 2004 in Case T‑198/01 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Germany) (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the total costs of the Commission of the European Communities related to the interlocutory proceedings and to these proceedings .

3. Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the costs incurred by Schott AG in the interlocutory proceedings.

4. Orders Schott AG to pay its own costs in these proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Officials of the European Communities – Action – Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations – Definition (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1) (see para. 37)

2. Officials of the European Communities – Action – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see paras 42, 44)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission whereby the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission’s decision of 23 February 2001 declaring the age limit laid down in Article 74(1)(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants applicable to the contracts of members of the auxiliary staff recruited under the third paragraph of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment as conference interpreters

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 June 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission in so far as it declared that the action for annulment of the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 was admissible and ordered the Commission of the European Communities to pay the whole of the costs relating to the action in Case T-323/01;

2. In Case T-323/01, dismisses the action for annulment of, first, the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 and, second, the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 September 2001 rejecting Mrs Alvarez Moreno’s complaint;

3. Orders each of the parties to bear its or her own costs relating to the present proceedings and to those brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Classification as special protection area

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4(1) and (2))

Summary

Article 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds lays down a system which is specifically targeted and reinforced both for the species listed in Annex I to that directive and for migratory species not included in that annex, an approach justified by the fact that they are, respectively, the most endangered species and the species constituting a common heritage of the Community. Furthermore, it is clear from the ninth recital in the preamble to that directive that the preservation, maintenance or restoration of a sufficient diversity and area of habitats is essential to the conservation of all species of birds. The Member States are therefore required to adopt the measures necessary for the conservation of those species and thus to classify as special protection areas (SPAs) all the sites which, applying ornithological criteria, appear to be the most suitable for conservation of the species in question.

For that purpose, the updating of scientific data is necessary to determine the situation of the most endangered species and the species constituting the common heritage of the Community. The Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community (IBA 2000) provides an up-to-date inventory of the areas of importance for the conservation of birds which, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, constitutes a basis of reference for assessing whether that Member State has classified as SPAs areas sufficient in number and size to offer protection to all the species of birds listed in Annex I to Directive 79/409 and also to the migratory species not included in that annex.

In the absence of the submission of scientific studies capable of disproving the results of the IBA 2000, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409 if it classifies as SPAs territories the number and overall size of which fall clearly short of the number and overall size of the territories fulfilling the preconditions for classification as SPAs, fails to designate SPAs to offer protection to certain species, and classifies as SPAs areas in which other species are insufficiently represented.

Although the Member States bear sole responsibility for the classification of SPAs and must base that classification on the best scientific knowledge available, that does not mean that such an obligation does not apply as long as the competent authorities have not evaluated and verified the new scientific knowledge. Such an obligation to classify has existed since the expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 79/409.

(see paras 24-25, 28, 32, 34, 48, 60, 62, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Pre-litigation procedure — Formal notice — Condition — Prior failure by a Member State to fulfil an obligation imposed on it — Observations of that State — Essential procedural requirement — Formal notice relating to failure to transpose a directive before expiry of the time-limit for implementation — Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

In order for a letter of formal notice to be issued, a prior failure by the Member State concerned to fulfil an obligation owed by it must be alleged. The opportunity for that Member State to submit its observations constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty and amounts to an essential procedural requirement in proceedings relating to the finding of a failure on the part of a Member State. The letter of formal notice cannot therefore relate to failure to transpose a directive in respect of which the time-limit for implementation had not yet expired.

(see para. 7)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 2(2); Commission Regulations No 3887/92, Art. 9(2), and No 2419/2001, Art. 31)

Summary

The second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, which provides that in the event of a subsequent amendment of the provisions which impose administrative penalties, the less severe provisions are to apply retroactively, does not apply if, a difference of the declared area which is greater than 20% of the determined area within the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes having been found, full repayment of the Community aid initially granted, together with interest, is sought whereas the economic operator concerned contends that the amount of the aid to be repaid might be lower under Article 31(3) of Regulation No 2419/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Regulation No 3508/92.

Article 31 of Regulation No 2419/2001 does not provide for any penalty and thus cannot constitute an amendment of the penalty under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92.

(see paras 24-25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Enforcement – Judgment authorising enforcement – Service

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 36)

Summary

Article 36 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Accession Conventions of 1978, 1982 and 1989, is to be interpreted as requiring due service of the decision authorising enforcement in accordance with the procedural rules of the Contracting State in which enforcement is sought, and therefore, in cases of failure of, or defective, service of the decision authorising enforcement, the mere fact that the party against whom enforcement is sought has notice of that decision is not sufficient to cause time to run for the purposes of the time-limit fixed in that article.

First, the requirement that the decision authorising enforcement be served has a dual function: on the one hand, it serves to protect the rights of the party against whom enforcement is sought and, on the other, it allows, in terms of evidence, the strict and mandatory time-limit for appealing provided for that provision to be calculated precisely. That double function, combined with the aim of simplification of the formalities to which enforcement of judicial decisions delivered in other Contracting States is subject, explains why the Convention makes transmission of the decision authorising enforcement to the party against whom enforcement is sought subject to procedural requirements that are more stringent than those applicable to transmission of that same decision to the applicant. Secondly, if the sole issue were whether the document authorising enforcement came to the attention of the party against whom enforcement was sought, that could render the requirement of due service meaningless and, moreover, would make the exact calculation of the time-limit provided for in that provision more difficult thus thwarting the uniform application of the provisions of the Convention.

(see paras 34-38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Contributions payable by persons entitled to pensions or annuities

(Art. 39 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 27 and 33(1))

Summary

Article 33(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, does not preclude, when the basis is determined for calculating sickness insurance contributions applied in the Member State of residence of the recipient of pensions paid by the institutions of that Member State responsible for the payment of benefits under Article 27 of that regulation, the inclusion in that basis of calculation, in addition to the pensions paid in the Member State of residence, also of pensions paid by the institutions of another Member State, provided that the sickness insurance contributions do not exceed the amount of pensions paid in the State of residence.

However, Article 39 EC precludes the amount of pensions received from institutions of another Member State from being taken into account if contributions have already been paid in that other State out of the income from work received in that State. It is for the persons concerned to prove that the earlier contributions were in fact paid.

(see paras 37-38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Rental right and lending right in respect of protected works – Directive 92/100

(Council Directive 92/100, Art. 2(1))

2. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Rental right and lending right in respect of protected works – Directive 92/100

(Council Directive 92/100, Arts 2(5) and (7), and 4)

Summary

1. Article 2(1) of Directive 92/100 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, as amended by Directive 2001/29, confers inter alia on the producer of the first fixation an exclusive right to authorise or prohibit rental and lending in respect of the original and copies of his film.

A Member State which creates in national law a rental right also in favour of producers of videograms fails to fulfil its obligations under that provision. That would not simply add an extra category of rightholders to the list in Article 2(1) of the Directive, but would, on the contrary, call into question the specific exclusive rights set out in that provision.

(see paras 22-23, 44, operative part)

2. Article 4 of Directive 92/100 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, as amended by Directive 2001/29, guarantees an equitable remuneration to authors or performers in the event of assignment of the rental right to a producer.

A Member State which creates in national legislation some doubt as to who is responsible for paying the remuneration in question fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive 92/100, read in conjunction with Article 2(5) and (7) thereof.

(see paras 38, 41, 44, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Privileges and immunities of the European Communities – Fiscal immunity of the Communities

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 3, third para.)

2. Privileges and immunities of the European Communities – Fiscal immunity of the Communities

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 3, second para.)

Summary

1. Duties such as the registration duties which must be paid following decisions of national courts and tribunals ordering payment of money or liquidation of securities do not amount merely to charges for public utility services within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, according to which no exemption is to be granted in respect of taxes and dues which amount merely to charges for public utility services.

(see para. 29, operative part 1)

2. The second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, which provides for the remission or refund of indirect taxes or sales taxes charged on property bought by the Communities for their official use, must be interpreted as meaning that duties such as the registration duties which must be paid following decisions of national courts and tribunals ordering payment of money or liquidation of securities do not fall within the scope of that provision.

(see para. 44, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials – Actions – Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations – Definition

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(1))

2. Officials – Actions – Acts adversely affecting an official – Definition

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2))

Summary

1. A request for the renewal of a contract of a member of the temporary staff, submitted by the head of the unit in which he is working, is not a request made by that member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. It is apparent from the clear language of that provision that only persons covered by those Staff Regulations can submit such a request. A note sent by one Commission department to another does not therefore fall within the framework set out by that provision and may not be treated in the same way as a request, otherwise the procedure laid down in that provision might be circumvented.

An email from that member of the temporary staff sent to the competent department and requesting certain information about his contract, but which does not request that department to take a decision in his regard, also does not constitute a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations either.

(see paras 37-39)

2. An applicant is adversely affected, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, only by measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect his or her interests by bringing about a distinct change in his or her legal position.

That is clearly not true of an email from the competent department informing the head of unit of a member of the temporary staff that the contract of that person cannot be renewed and which contains no new factor as compared with the terms of the contract, which is the sole source of legal effects with regard to the persons covered by the Staff Regulations. Such a communication constitutes a purely confirmatory measure and cannot therefore have the effect of setting a fresh time-limit.

(see paras 42-46)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Accidents at work and occupational disease – Calculation of benefit

(Art. 42 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 58(1))

Summary

Article 58(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, according to which, where the legislation of a Member State provides that the calculation of cash benefits for occupational illness is to be based an average wage or salary, the latter is to be determined exclusively by reference to wages or salaries recorded during the periods completed under that legislation, must be interpreted in accordance with the objective set out in Article 42 EC, which requires in particular that migrant workers must not lose their right to social security benefits or have the amount of those benefits reduced because they have exercised the right to freedom of movement conferred on them by the EC Treaty.

It follows that, in the case of an occupational sickness benefit whose amount is calculated by reference to average pay earned during the final months of working in national territory, calculation of that average pay must, in relation to a migrant worker, be made in such a way as to take into account the pay that the person concerned could reasonably have earned, given his subsequent employment record, had he continued to work in the Member State in which the competent institution is situated.

(see paras 38, 43, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Ink cartridge without an integrated print head for use in only one particular type of printer – Classification under subheading 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1734/96, must be interpreted as meaning that an ink cartridge without an integrated print head consisting of plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink, can only be used in a printer of a particular type, must be classified, pursuant to general rule 3(b) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, under subheading 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.

Even if the ink cartridge in question is constructed in such a way that the printer does not function in the absence of that cartridge, the fact remains that the ink contained in the cartridge is the most important factor for the purpose of using the goods at issue. The ink cartridge is inserted into the printer not in order to make the printer itself function but specifically to supply it with ink. Therefore, the ink must be regarded as determining the essential character of the cartridge.

In that respect, the tariff classification of ink cartridges with an integrated print head, composed of other materials, under heading 8473 does not necessarily determine the tariff classification of the ink cartridge in question.

(see paras 23-25, operative part)