ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 para. 11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation in the event of extraordinary circumstances – Implementation, by the air carrier, of reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 5(3) and 6(1))

Summary

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier, since it is obliged to implement all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, must reasonably, at the stage of organising the flight, take account of the risk of delay connected to the possible occurrence of such circumstances. It must, consequently, provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end. The assessment of the reasonable nature of the measures taken to provide for a reserve time so as to prevent, if possible, the delay resulting from extraordinary circumstances leading to cancellation of the flight must be carried out not with regard to the delay in relation to the aeroplane’s scheduled departure time, but taking account of the delay that may exist at the end of the flight operated in the new conditions to which the extraordinary circumstances have given rise. Consequently, that assessment must take account of those secondary risks, insofar as their constituent elements are foreseeable and calculable.

However, that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring, as a ‘reasonable measure’, provision to be made, generally and without distinction, for a minimum reserve time applicable in the same way to all air carriers in all situations when extraordinary circumstances arise. The assessment of the ability of the air carrier to operate the programmed flight in its entirety in the new conditions resulting from the occurrence of those circumstances must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that the length of the required reserve time does not result in the air carrier’s being led to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time.

Article 6(1) of that regulation is not applicable in the context of the assessment of the reasonable nature of measures taken, by the air carrier, to provide for a reserve time so as to operate the flight in its entirety. That provision relates to various categories of ‘delay’ attributable to the air carrier and not connected with the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

(see paras 32, 34, 36-37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – Communities-Bulgaria Association Agreement – Movement of workers – Access to regulated professions

(Communities-Bulgaria Association Agreement, Arts 38(1) and 47)

Summary

The principle of non-discrimination set out in the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, must be interpreted as not having precluded, before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union, legislation of a Member State under which a Bulgarian national, because of a nationality condition laid down by that legislation, was unable to obtain inclusion on the list of trainee lawyers and, consequently, to obtain a certificate of entitlement to appear in court.

Nothing in that agreement allows it to be deduced from the first indent of Article 38(1) or other provisions of the agreement that the contracting parties intended to eliminate all discrimination based on nationality as regards access to regulated professions by Bulgarian nationals. It must also be borne in mind that that provision appears in Title IV, Chapter I of the agreement, ‘Movement of workers’, while regulated professions are mentioned in Article 47 of the agreement, which appears in Title IV, Chapter II, ‘Establishment’, and deals with access to regulated professions without imposing an obligation in that connection not to discriminate on grounds of nationality.

Inclusion on the list of trainee lawyers, which is a condition of access to the regulated profession of lawyer, thus cannot be regarded as a working condition within the meaning of the first indent of Article 38(1).

(see paras 27-28, 30, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Council Regulation No 1782/2003; Council Decision 2004/281)

Summary

Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Decision 2004/281 adapting the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, following the reform of the common agricultural policy, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from the benefit of complementary national aid legal persons carrying on agricultural activity in the territory of the Member State in question, on the ground that they are the subject of voluntary dissolution proceedings, when a condition that there be no such proceedings has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the Commission.

Although Regulation No 1782/2003 grants the new Member States a certain discretion in setting in motion the complementary national aid, that discretion is nevertheless limited in so far as, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143c(7) of that regulation, the amount up to which the complementary national aid may be paid, as well as its rate and the possible conditions of its grant, must be subject to the prior authorisation of the Commission.

(see paras 36, 38, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 78, first para., (a))

Summary

A vehicle tax, the chargeable event for which is linked directly to the supply of a vehicle falling within the ambit of that tax and which is paid by the supplier of that vehicle, is covered by the definition of ‘taxes, duties, levies and charges’ for the purpose of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax and must, pursuant to that provision, be included in the taxable amount for value added tax on the supply of that vehicle.

Sums paid by the supplier by way of that vehicle tax by reason of the manufacture, assembly, admission or import into Portuguese territory of vehicles that must be registered in Portugal are, therefore, included in the value of the vehicle supplied. The purchaser of a vehicle subject to that vehicle tax, paid by the supplier of that vehicle in his own name and on his own behalf, pays, therefore, for a previous transaction carried out by that taxable person.

(see paras 34, 37, 42, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Right to paid annual leave – Airline pilots

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7; Council Directive 2000/79, annexed agreement, Clause 3)

Summary

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Clause 3 of the Agreement annexed to Directive 2000/79 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation must be interpreted as meaning that an airline pilot is entitled, during his annual leave, not only to the maintenance of his basic salary, but also, first, to all the components intrinsically linked to the performance of the tasks he is required to carry out under his contract of employment and in respect of which a monetary amount, included in the calculation of his total remuneration, is provided and, second, to all the elements relating to his personal and professional status as an airline pilot.

It is for the national court to assess whether the various components comprising that worker’s total remuneration meet those criteria.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions

–

National legislation limiting the tax representation of investment funds and real property investment funds to national financial institutions and national business trustees

–

Not permissible

–

Not justified by the general interest (Art. 49 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 36) (see paras 25, 31-34, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 49 EC and of Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) – Legislation of a Member State restricting tax representation in respect of investment funds and real property investment funds to business trustees and financial institutions established in that State.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only national financial institutions and national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment funds or real property investment funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax

(Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 9(1) and 168)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Restriction of the right to deduct

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 168)

Summary

1. A taxpayer may, in principle, claim a right of deduction of input value added tax paid or payable for the supply of a service, carried out for consideration, when the applicable national law permits the assignment of a share in the co‑ownership of an invention which confers rights relating to the invention.

The concept of economic activity encompasses any activity of producers, traders or persons supplying services. The terms ‘supply of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ are objective in nature and apply without regard to the purpose or results of the transactions concerned. Thus, the assignment of a share in the co-ownership of an invention, notwithstanding the fact that that invention was not registered as a patent, may, in principle, be an economic activity subject to value added tax. It follows that such a transaction may give rise to a right of deduction of input value added tax paid or payable.

The question whether the assignment at issue is carried out for the sole purpose of obtaining a tax advantage is entirely irrelevant in determining whether it constitutes a supply of a service and an economic activity within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax.

(see paras 45-48, operative part 1)

2. In the sphere of value added tax, an abusive practice can be found to exist only if, first, the transactions concerned, notwithstanding formal application of the conditions laid down by the relevant provisions of the directive and the national legislation transposing it, result in the accrual of a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of those provisions and, second, it is apparent from a number of objective factors that the essential aim of the transactions concerned is solely to obtain that tax advantage.

With regard to the tax treatment of a transaction in which a share in the co- ownership of an invention which confers rights relating to the invention is assigned, it is for the referring court to establish, taking into account all the factual circumstances characterising such a supply of the service, whether or not there has been an abuse of rights with regard to the right of deduction of input value added tax.

(see paras 52, 54, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987 – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions

(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/74, Arts 3 and 4)

Summary

Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which obliges employees to register as job-seekers in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in order fully to assert their right to payment of wage claims outstanding, uncontested and recognised by the national legislation.

It is purely by way of exception that Member States have the option, under Article 4 of Directive 80/987, to limit the payment obligation referred to in Article 3 of that directive. Article 4 of Directive 80/987 must be interpreted strictly and in conformity with its social objective, which is to guarantee a minimum of protection to all employees. To this effect, the cases in which it is permitted to limit the payment obligation of the guarantee institutions are listed exhaustively by Directive 80/987 and the provisions concerned must be interpreted strictly, having regard to their being derogations and to the social objective of that directive. In this respect, it would be contrary to the objective of Directive 80/987 to interpret it, and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof, in such a way that an employee is subject – owing to not fulfilling the obligation to register as a job-seeker within a given period – to an automatic and flat-rate reduction of the reimbursement of his salary claims, uncontested and recognised by the national legislation, and is not, therefore, entitled to the guarantee in respect of the salary which he has actually lost during the reference period.

(see paras 30-31, 34-35, 39, operative part)
Since breaches of Regulations No 3821/85 and No 561/2006 do not all have the same degree of seriousness with regard to the objectives of those regulations which are, firstly, the improvement of the relevant drivers’ working conditions and of road safety and, secondly, the laying down of uniform rules with respect to common rules on driving times, drivers’ breaks and rest periods and their monitoring, application of a flat-rate fine for all breaches of the rules on the use of record sheets, without adjustment of the amount of the penalty in keeping with the seriousness of the breach, appears to be disproportionate in the light of the objectives pursued by the European Union legislation.

The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport must be interpreted as precluding a system of penalties which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all breaches, no matter how serious, of the rules on the use of record sheets laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Regulation No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation No 561/2006.

The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport must be interpreted as not precluding a system of penalties which lays down strict liability of drivers for breaches of the provisions of Regulation No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation No 561/2006, concerning the use of record sheets.

The institution of such a system may be justified, given that, on the one hand, that system is such as to encourage drivers to comply with the provisions of Regulation No 3821/85 and, on the other, road safety and improvements in the social conditions for drivers are matters of public interest.

That requirement of proportionality must, however, be interpreted as precluding the severity of the penalty provided for by that system when it requires the national authorities responsible for penalising infringements of Regulations No 3821/85 and No 561/2006 to impose a fine at a flat rate almost equivalent to the average monthly net income of an employee in the Member State concerned, without being able to take account of the actual circumstances of the individual case and, if appropriate, to reduce the amount of that fine. That penalty system appears to be disproportionate, particularly in a case in which only one of 15 discs checked was found not to have been completed properly.

(see paras 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, operative part 2)
Case C-482/10

Teresa Cicala

v

Regione Siciliana

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana)

‛National administrative procedure — Administrative acts — Obligation to state reasons — Possibility of failure to state reasons being remedied during legal proceedings against an administrative act — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 December 2011 I - 14141

Summary of the Judgment

Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Purely internal situations

(Art. 267 TFEU)

An interpretation, by the Court, of provisions of Union law in purely internal situations is justified on the ground that they have been made applicable by national law directly and unconditionally, in order to ensure that internal situations and situations governed by Union law are treated in the same way.

However, when a provision of national law makes a generalised renvoi to ‘principles derived from the Community legal order’ and not specifically to the provisions of EU law referred to by the questions raised, it cannot be considered that those provisions have been, as such, made applicable directly by the national law at issue. Similarly, it cannot be considered, in those circumstances, that the renvoi to Union law as a means of regulating purely internal situations is unconditional in such a way that the provisions referred to by those questions are applicable without limitation to the situation at issue in the main proceedings.

The Court does not, therefore, have jurisdiction to respond to the questions raised by a national court concerning the interpretation of specific provisions of Union law when it cannot be inferred that, by referring to principles deriving from Union law, the national legislature intended to make a renvoi to the content of those specific provisions so that internal situations and situations falling within Union law might be treated in the same way.

(see paras 19, 25-27, 29-30, operative part)
European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to define the concept of ‘workers who have an employment contract or an employment relationship’ in clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work which appears in the Annex to Council Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23, and, in particular, to determine whether judges fall within that concept, subject to the condition that that does not lead to the arbitrary exclusion of that category of persons from the protection offered by Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, and that agreement. An exclusion from that protection may be allowed only if the relationship between judges and the Ministry of Justice is, by its nature, substantially different from that between employers and their employees falling, according to national law, under the category of workers.

In that connection, it must be observed that the sole fact that judges are treated as holders of judicial office holders is not in itself enough to exclude them from enjoying the rights provided for by that framework agreement.

Furthermore, that judges are subject to terms of service and they might be regarded as workers within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work in no way jeopardises the principle of the independence of the judiciary or the right of the Member States to provide for a particular status governing the judiciary.

(see paras 41, 47, 51, operative part 1)
It follows from Article 38(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and the related case-law that an application must state clearly and precisely the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defence and the Court to rule on the application. It follows that the essential points of law and of fact on which an action is based must be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and that the heads of claim must be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on a complaint.

Where an action is brought under Article 258 TFEU, the application must set out the complaints coherently and precisely, so that the Member State and the Court can know exactly the full extent of the alleged infringement of European Union law, a condition which must be satisfied if the Member State is to be able to present an effective defence and the Court to determine whether there has been a breach of obligations, as alleged.

(see paras 24, 26)