ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax (VAT) must be interpreted as meaning that the value added tax (VAT) entered by a person on an invoice is payable by him regardless of whether a taxable transaction actually exists.

However, the obligation under Article 203 of that directive, which is intended to eliminate the risk of loss of tax revenue which the right of deduction provided for in Article 167 et seq. of the directive might entail, is limited by the possibility, to be provided for by the Member States in their national legal systems, of correcting any tax improperly invoiced where the issuer of the invoice shows that he acted in good faith or where he has, in sufficient time, wholly eliminated the risk of any loss of tax revenue.

Moreover, to the extent that the issuer of an invoice does not rely on one of the cases in which improperly invoiced value added tax (VAT) can be corrected, the tax authorities are not obliged, in the context of a tax audit of that person, to determine whether the value added tax (VAT) invoiced and declared corresponds to taxable transactions which were actually carried out by him.

Article 203 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the tax authorities did not correct, in a tax adjustment notice addressed to the issuer of that invoice, the value added tax (VAT) declared by the latter that those authorities have acknowledged that the invoice corresponded to an actual taxable transaction.

However, EU law does not preclude the competent authority from checking the existence of the transactions invoiced by a taxable person and rectifying, where necessary, the tax debt resulting from the declarations made by the taxable person. The outcome of such a check is, like the declaration and the payment, by the issuer of the invoice, of invoiced value added tax (VAT), one factor to be taken into account by the national court when assessing whether a taxable transaction conferring the right of deduction on the recipient of an invoice in a specific case exists.

(see paras 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, operative part 1)
As is apparent from the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax (VAT), in order to apply that tax, every supply must normally be regarded as distinct and independent. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, several formally distinct services, which could be supplied separately and thus give rise, in turn, to taxation or exemption, must be considered to be a single transaction when they are not independent. There is a single supply, in particular, where two or more elements or acts supplied by the taxable person to the customer are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split. Such is the case particularly where one or more elements are to be regarded as constituting the principal supply, while other elements are to be regarded, by contrast, as one or more ancillary supplies which share the tax treatment of the principal supply. In that regard, a supply must be regarded as ancillary to a principal supply in particular if it does not constitute for customers an end in itself but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied.

In principle, that is not the case regarding the supply of insurance for a leased item and the supply of leasing services. In that connection, although it is true that, as a result of the insurance for the leased item, the risks faced by the lessee are normally reduced as compared with those incurred in a situation in which such insurance is lacking, it remains the case that that derives from the very nature of the insurance. That, in itself, does not mean that such insurance must be regarded as being ancillary to the leasing service of which it forms part. Although such insurance supplied to the lessee through the lessor facilitates the enjoyment of the leasing service, in the manner described above, it must be held that constitutes essentially an end in itself for the lessee and not only the means to enjoy that service under the best conditions.

(see paras 29, 30, 41, 42, 48, 50, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers — Old-age and survivor’s insurance — Calculation of benefit — Establishment of the theoretical amount — National legislation laying down the theoretical amount of a retirement pension relative to an average contribution basis over a fixed reference period — Not permissible to invariably calculate the amount, for a self-employed worker, migrant or non-migrant, on contribution bases paid over that period immediately preceding the payment of the last contribution in the relevant Member State, without adapting it so as to take account of the fact that the worker concerned has exercised his right to freedom of movement

(Art. 48 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 3, 46(2)(a) and 47(1)(g), and Annex VI, heading H, para. 4]

Summary

Article 48 TFEU, Articles 3, 46(2)(a) and 47(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, and heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, under which the theoretical amount of the retirement pension of a self-employed worker, migrant or non-migrant, is invariably calculated on contribution bases paid by that worker over a fixed reference period preceding the payment of his last contribution in that Member State, to which a fixed divisor is applied, when it is impossible for either the duration of that period or the divisor to be adapted so as to take account of the fact that the worker concerned has exercised his right to freedom of movement.

Articles 46(2) and 47(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted in the light of the objective laid down by Article 48 TFEU, which implies in particular that migrant workers must not suffer a reduction in the amount of their social security benefits as a result of having availed themselves of their right of free movement.

(see paras 43, 52, operative part)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Reformulation of questions which are improperly formulated or not expressly set out

Consumer protection — Food safety — Regulation No 178/2002 — Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk — National legislation allowing information to be issued to the public in relation to the name of the food and the name of the food manufacturer, processor or distributor — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 178/2002, Arts 10 and 17(2), second para., and No 882/2004, Art. 7)
A Member State which uses a purely quantitative criterion for assessing whether the holding by private individuals of manufactured tobacco from another Member State is of a commercial nature and which applies that criterion per individual vehicle (and not per person), and in respect of all of the tobacco products in aggregate, fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, specifically, under Articles 8 and 9 thereof.

Article 9(2) of the directive sets out a number of criteria for the purposes of establishing whether products are held for commercial purposes. Specifically, as is apparent from the actual wording of the first subparagraph of Article 9(2), to establish whether products are held for commercial purposes, Member States must take account, inter alia, of several factors, the quantity of the products held being just one of the factors listed amongst several others. Furthermore, as regards that factor, the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) provides that Member States may lay down guide levels, solely as a form of evidence. It follows that Article 9(2) does not allow Member States to determine that products are held for commercial purposes solely on the basis of a purely quantitative threshold for products held.

Moreover, in expressly setting minimum thresholds for several distinct categories of tobacco products, the directive permits the Member States to lay down weight-thresholds for all of the tobacco products held in aggregate, only on condition that each of those minimum thresholds is complied with.

Lastly, since the aim of Article 9(2) of the directive is to specify the conditions under which excise duty is to become chargeable to the holder of the products pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 9(1), the minimum guide thresholds laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) must be held to refer to that holder and, therefore, as applying per person.

(see paras 16, 17, 22, 23, 30, operative part)
Keywords

Summary

Keywords Harmonisation of tax legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Identification of the supplier and the recipient — Possibility of disregarding the contractual terms if they constitute a wholly artificial arrangement with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage — Determination by the national court (Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2(1) and 6(1)) Summary Contractual terms, even though they constitute a factor to be taken into consideration, are not decisive for the purposes of identifying the supplier and the recipient of a ‘supply of services’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. They may in particular be disregarded if it becomes apparent that they do not reflect economic and commercial reality, but constitute a wholly artificial arrangement which does not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, which it is for the national court to determine. (see para. 52, operative part)

Case C-653/11

Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

v

Paul Newey

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) — Meaning of ‘supply of services’ — Supply of advertising and loan broking services — Exemptions — Economic and commercial reality of the transactions — Abusive practices — Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 20 June 2013

Harmonisation of tax legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Identification of the supplier and the recipient — Possibility of disregarding the contractual terms if they constitute a wholly artificial arrangement with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage — Determination by the national court

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2(1) and 6(1))

Contractual terms, even though they constitute a factor to be taken into consideration, are not decisive for the purposes of identifying the supplier and the recipient of a ‘supply of services’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. They may in particular be disregarded if it becomes apparent that they do not reflect economic and commercial reality, but constitute a wholly artificial arrangement which does not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, which it is for the national court to determine.

(see para. 52, operative part)
Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the award of an education grant for studies in another Member State for a period of more than one year subject to a sole condition requiring the applicant to have had a permanent residence, within the meaning of that law, in national territory for at least three years before commencing those studies.

Such a condition is likely to dissuade nationals from exercising their right to freedom of movement and residence in another Member State, given the impact that exercising that freedom is likely to have on the right to the education or training grant.

It is indeed legitimate for a Member State to grant such assistance only to students who have demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the society of that State. However, the proof required to demonstrate the genuine link must not be too exclusive in nature or unduly favour one element which is not necessarily representative of the real and effective degree of connection between the claimant and this Member State, to the exclusion of all other representative elements. Thus, the existence of a certain degree of integration may be regarded as established by a finding that the student in question has resided for a certain length of time in the Member State where he applies for an education or training grant. However, a sole condition of residence is likely to exclude from the relevant funding students who, despite not having resided for an uninterrupted period of three years in the Member State awarding the grant immediately prior to studying abroad, are nevertheless sufficiently connected to the society of that Member State. That may be the case where the student is a national of the State concerned and was educated there for a significant period or on account of other factors such as, in particular, his family, employment, language skills or the existence of other social and economic factors.

(see paras 32, 36-38, 41, operative part)
Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that a railway undertaking is not entitled to include in its general terms and conditions of carriage a clause under which it is exempt from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of a delay where the delay is attributable to force majeure or to one of the reasons set out at Article 32(2) of the Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999.

In that regard, the purpose of the compensation provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007 is to compensate the passenger for the consideration provided for a service which was not ultimately supplied in accordance with the transport contract. It is a fixed-rate standard form of financial compensation, unlike that provided for under the system of liability established at Article 32(1) of the CIV Uniform Rules, which requires an individual assessment of the damage suffered.

Therefore, as the purpose of the above provisions and the procedures for their implementation are different, the compensation system provided for by the EU legislature in Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007 cannot be treated in the same way as the railway carrier’s liability system under Article 32(1) of the CIV Uniform Rules. The carrier’s grounds of exemption from liability provided for in Article 32(2) of the CIV Uniform Rules cannot be considered applicable in the context of Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007.

(see paras 38, 39, 42, 52, operative part 2)
Case C‑500/11

The Queen, on the application of Fruition Po Ltd,

v

Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 — Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producer organisations — Conditions for recognition by national authorities — Provision of technical resources required for storage, packing and marketing of produce — Whether organisation obliged, in the event of delegation of its tasks to third party companies, to exercise control over those companies’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 19 December 2013

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producer organisations — Recognition of those organisations by the national authorities in cases of outsourcing of essential activities — Conditions — Contractual agreement enabling producer organisation to continue to be responsible for the carrying out of outsourced activities and for control of their overall management — Determination by national court or tribunal

(Council Regulation No 2200/96, Art. 11)

Article 11 of Regulation No 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables must be interpreted as meaning that in order that a producer organisation which has entrusted to a third party the carrying out of the activities which are essential to its recognition under that provision can meet the conditions for recognition laid down therein, it is obliged to enter into a contractual agreement enabling it to continue to be responsible for the carrying out of those activities and for control of their overall management, in such a way that that organisation retains, ultimately, the power of control and, when necessary, the power to take timely action as regards those activities being carried out for the entire duration of the agreement. It is for the competent national court or tribunal to determine, in each case and taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including the nature and extent of the outsourced activities, whether the producer organisation concerned has retained such control.

(see para. 32, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — Storck v OHIM

(Case C-96/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of the product — Three-dimensional mark incorporating a figurative element (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33-35, 38, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle — Annulment — Condition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 74, 80)

3. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Grounds for decisions — Objective (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 86, 88)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 in Case T-13/09 Storck v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008, rejecting the appeal filed against the examiner’s decision refusing registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a chocolate mouse as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — Storck v OHIM

(Case C-96/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of the product — Three-dimensional mark incorporating a figurative element (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33-35, 38, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle — Annulment — Condition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 74, 80)

3. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Grounds for decisions — Objective (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 86, 88)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 in Case T-13/09 Storck v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008, rejecting the appeal filed against the examiner’s decision refusing registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a chocolate mouse as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — Commission v Denmark

(Case C-95/11)

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT’

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons — Concept — Possibility for the Member States to regard closely linked persons as a single taxable person — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person — Failure to fulfil obligations — No such failure (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 11) (see paras 33-38, 41)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — Commission v Denmark

(Case C-95/11)

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT’

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons — Concept — Possibility for the Member States to regard closely linked persons as a single taxable person — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person — Failure to fulfil obligations — No such failure (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 11) (see paras 33-38, 41)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;