ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Having regard to the principle of fiscal neutrality, the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4, read in conjunction with Annex H, category 5, thereto, and Article 98(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III, point 5, thereto, must be interpreted as not precluding two types of services for the local transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, namely transport by taxi and transport by minicab, from being subject to different rates of value added tax, one a reduced rate and the other the standard rate, in so far as, first, by reason of the different statutory requirements to which those two types of transport are subject, the activity of local transport of passengers by taxi constitutes a concrete and specific aspect of the category of services of transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, covered by category 5 and point 5 of the respective annexes to those directives and, secondly, those differences have a decisive influence on the decision of the average user to use one such service or the other. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the case.

(see para. 60, operative part 1)
Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation and application of domestic legislation enacted by a Member State which categorically excludes, for legal reasons, any civil liability of undertakings belonging to a cartel for loss resulting from the fact that an undertaking not party to the cartel, having regard to the practices of the cartel, set its prices higher than would otherwise have been expected under competitive conditions.

The full effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU would be put at risk if the right of any individual to claim compensation for harm suffered were subjected by national law, categorically and regardless of the particular circumstances of the case, to the existence of a direct causal link while excluding that right because the individual concerned had no contractual links with a member of the cartel, but with an undertaking not party thereto, whose pricing policy, however, is a result of the cartel that contributed to the distortion of price formation mechanisms governing competitive markets.

Consequently, the victim of umbrella pricing may obtain compensation for the loss caused by the members of a cartel, even if it did not have contractual links with them, where it is established that the cartel at issue was, in the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the specific aspects of the relevant market, liable to have the effect of umbrella pricing being applied by third parties acting independently, and that those circumstances and specific aspects could not be ignored by the members of that cartel. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

(see paras 33, 34, 37, operative part)
Civil liability claims which are made in tort under national law must be regarded as concerning matters relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.

The mere fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns matters relating to a contract within the meaning of that article. In that regard, the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter. Otherwise, if the referring court cannot determine that the purpose of the claim for damages can reasonably be regarded as a breach of the rights and obligations set out in the contract which binds the parties, the applicant’s claims must be considered as falling under matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.

(see paras 23-27, 29, operative part)
Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States must be interpreted as not precluding a refusal by a Member State to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen, where that citizen is a national of and resides in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.

Those provisions of that directive confer an actual right of residence on Union citizens and a derived right on their family members only where Union citizens exercise their right to freedom of movement by establishing themselves in a Member State other than the one of which they are nationals.

(see paras 34, 35, operative part)
Case C‑474/12

Schiebel Aircraft GmbH

v

Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom of movement for workers — Non-discrimination — Article 346(1)(b) TFEU — Protection of a Member State’s essential security interests — Legislation of a Member State under which the statutory representatives of a business engaged within the national territory in the trading of arms, munitions and war material must hold the nationality of that Member State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 4 September 2014

Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Trade in military arms and munitions and the brokering of the sale and purchase of military arms and munitions — Condition of nationality for the members of their statutory representation bodies or their managing partner — Unlawful — Justification — Protection of essential security interests — Assessment by the national court

Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope ratione personae — Whether an employer can rely on the rule of equal treatment

See the text of the decision. (see paras 20, 21)

The rule of equal treatment in the context of freedom of movement for workers, enshrined in Article 45 TFEU, may also be relied upon by an employer in order to employ, in the Member State in which he is established, workers who are nationals of another Member State. That consideration, which relates to a situation in which a company established in a Member State was precluded by a provision of national law from registering for a trade because the person whom it had appointed as its salaried manager did not reside in that Member State, also applies, by analogy, where the condition at issue concerns a manager who is not an employee. The rules governing freedom of movement for workers could easily be frustrated if Member States were able to circumvent prohibitions under those rules merely by imposing on employers conditions to be met by any worker whom they wished to employ, which, if imposed directly on the worker, would constitute restrictions of the exercise of the worker’s right to freedom of movement under Article 45 TFEU. A finding to that effect must also be made where the employer wishes to employ, not a salaried worker, but a worker with self-employed status whose situation is covered by Article 49 TFEU. (see paras 25, 26)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 27)
In order for the Court to be able to give an interpretation of EU law that is useful to the national court, Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice provides that the request for a preliminary ruling must contain a statement of the reasons which prompted the referring court to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of EU law, and the relationship between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the main proceedings. As regards an order for reference which does not make clear why the referring court expresses doubts concerning the compatibility of the legislation at issue in the main proceedings with Article 15 of the Charter and which contains no information allowing the Court to provide the referring court with guidance on the interpretation of EU law which would enable it to resolve the legal problems before it, the question must be declared inadmissible, given that the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer.

(see paras 17, 19-21)
10

Article 23(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, which is entitled ‘Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules’, reads as follows: ‘Where the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions are not complied with at any time in a given calendar year (hereinafter referred to as “the calendar year concerned”), and the non-compliance in question is the result of an act or omission directly attributable to the farmer who submitted the aid application in the calendar year concerned, the total amount of direct payments granted or to be granted … shall be reduced or excluded in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in Article 24. The first subparagraph shall also apply where the non-compliance in question is the result of an act or omission directly attributable to the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred. For the purpose of this paragraph, “transfer” shall mean any type of transaction whereby the agricultural land ceases to be at the disposal of the transferor. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph, from 2010, where the person to whom the act or omission is directly attributable has submitted an aid application in the calendar year concerned, the reduction or exclusion shall be applied to the total amounts of direct payments granted or to be granted to that person.’
32

In that regard, the national court must examine, in particular, the question whether the amount of the aid granted to the applicant in the main proceedings would have been less if the latter had not been prevented from exercising its right to deduct. It is apparent from the file submitted to the Court that the amount of the aid in question had been calculated by referring to the ‘eligible expenses’ of that project, which includes both the net cost of the project and the non-deductible VAT. The national court must accordingly determine whether, if the eligible expenses had been calculated by disregarding the non-deductible VAT, the amount of the aid ought to have been less than that which was actually granted. Were that the case, the excess resulting from the higher amount of the aid which Alakor accordingly was able to benefit from would be the consequence of the fact that part of the non-deductible VAT had been covered by that aid. The economic burden relating to the part of the tax corresponding to that excess would, on that basis, be subsidised by the Funds provider and not by Alakor.
12

Article 5 of Legislative Decree No 368/2001, entitled ‘Expiry of term and penalties. Successive contracts’, provides: ‘1. If an employment relationship continues after the expiry of the term initially fixed or subsequently extended as provided for in Article 4, the employer shall be required to pay the worker an increase in pay equal to 20% per day up to the 10th day, and 40% for each additional day. 2. If the employment relationship continues beyond the 20th day for contracts for a term of less than six months, or beyond the 30th day in other cases, the contract shall be considered to be of indefinite duration as from those dates. 3. Where a worker is re-employed for a fixed-term as provided for in Article 1 within a period of 10 days from the expiry of a contract for a term of up to 6 months, or 20 days from the expiry of a contract for a term of more than 6 months, the second contract shall be considered to be of indefinite duration. 4. Where a worker is employed for two successive fixed-terms, which shall be understood to mean employment relationships between which there is no break in continuity, the employment relationship shall be considered to be of indefinite duration as from the date on which the first contract was made.’
50

First, it must be examined whether a farmer wishing to challenge an administrative act by the Direktor concerning him must participate in person in the legal proceedings. In this connection, it is apparent from the observations submitted to the Court that an individual in a position such as that of Agrokonsulting is not obliged to appear in person but can be represented by a lawyer, a spouse, a first-degree relative in the ascending or descending line, legal counsel or an employee with legal training. The Bulgarian Government adds that legal aid is granted where it is demonstrated that an individual does not have sufficient resources to pay for a lawyer’s services. In addition, according to that government, the costs, including lawyers’ fees, are awarded to the party who is successful in such an action, if that party has applied for them. Costs are also awarded to the applicant where the case is closed following the withdrawal of the contested administrative act. Furthermore, according to the Direktor, in actions concerning administrative acts issued by him, a statement by the applicant that the contested act is unlawful is sufficient to shift the burden of proving the lawfulness of that act onto the authorities. So far as necessary, it is for the referring court, which, unlike the Court in a case referred under Article 267 TFEU, has jurisdiction to interpret Bulgarian law, to verify these points.
16

In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Where a trader has separate registrations of Community trade marks for (a) a graphic device mark (b) a word mark and uses the two together, is such use capable of amounting to use of the [figurative] mark for the purposes of Articles 15 and 51 of Regulation [No 207/2009]? If yes, how is the question of use of the graphic mark to be assessed? (2) Does it make a difference if: (a) the word mark is superimposed over the [figurative element]? (b) the trader also has the combined mark comprising [the figurative element] and [the] word mark registered as a Community trade mark? (3) Does the answer to [the first and second questions] depend upon whether the graphic device and the words are perceived by the average consumer as [on the one hand] being separate signs; or [on the other hand] each having an independent distinctive role? If so, how? (4) Where a Community trade mark is not registered in colour, but the proprietor has used it extensively in a particular colour or combination of colours such that it has become associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public (in a part but not the whole of the [European Union]) with that colour or combination of colours, is the colour or colours with which the defendant uses the sign complained of relevant in the global assessment of [either the] likelihood of confusion under Article 9(1)(b) [of Regulation No 207/2009], or unfair advantage under Article 9(1)(c) of[that regulation]? If so, how? (5) If so, is it relevant as part of the global assessment that the defendant itself is associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public with the colour or particular combination of colours which it is using for the sign complained of?’
3

Article 1(1) to 1(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006 provides: ‘1. This Regulation harmonises the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which relate to nutrition and health claims in order to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market whilst providing a high level of consumer protection. 2. This Regulation shall apply to nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications, whether in the labelling, presentation or advertising of foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer. … 3. A trade mark, brand name or fancy name appearing in the labelling, presentation or advertising of a food which may be construed as a nutrition or health claim may be used without undergoing the authorisation procedures provided for in this Regulation, provided that it is accompanied by a related nutrition or health claim in that labelling, presentation or advertising which complies with the provisions of this Regulation.’
4

Recitals 1, 5, 24, 26, 31 and 32 in the preamble to Directive 2004/8 state: ‘(1) The potential for use of cogeneration as a measure to save energy is underused in the Community at present. Promotion of high-efficiency cogeneration based on a useful heat demand is a Community priority given the potential benefits of cogeneration with regard to saving primary energy, avoiding network losses and reducing emissions, in particular of greenhouse gases. In addition, efficient use of energy by cogeneration can also contribute positively to the security of energy supply and to the competitive situation of the European Union and its Member States. It is therefore necessary to take measures to ensure that the potential is better exploited within the framework of the internal energy market. … (5) The increased use of cogeneration geared towards making primary energy savings could constitute an important part of the package of measures needed to comply with the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [“the Kyoto Protocol”] … … (24) Public support should be consistent with the provisions of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [OJ 2001 C 37, p. 3, “the Community guidelines”)], including as regards the non-cumulation of aid. These guidelines currently allow certain types of public support if it can be shown that the support measures are beneficial in terms of protection of the environment because the conversion efficiency is particularly high, because the measures will allow energy consumption to be reduced or because the production process will be less damaging to the environment. Such support will in some cases be necessary to further exploit the potential for cogeneration, in particular to take account of the need to internalise external costs. … (26) Member States operate different mechanisms of support for cogeneration at the national level, including investment aid, tax exemptions or reductions, green certificates and direct price support schemes. One important means to achieve the aim of this Directive is to guarantee the proper functioning of these mechanisms, until a harmonised Community framework is put into operation, in order to maintain investor confidence. The Commission intends to monitor the situation and report on experiences gained with the application of national support schemes. … (31) The overall efficiency and sustainability of cogeneration is dependent on many factors, such as technology used, fuel types, load curves, the size of the unit, and also on the properties of the heat. … (32) In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5 [EC], general principles providing a framework for the promotion of cogeneration in the internal energy market should be set at Community level, but the detailed implementation should be left to Member States, thus allowing each Member State to choose the regime, which corresponds best to its particular situation. This Directive confines itself to the minimum required in order to achieve those objectives and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.’
15

Article 308 of that code states: ‘1. The allowance granted for the leave taken immediately following maternity or adoption leave may not be combined with a parenting allowance, an equivalent non-Luxembourg benefit or a non‑Luxembourg benefit payable in connection with parental leave which has been granted in respect of the same child or children, with the exception of an extended parenting allowance granted in respect of a group of three or more children or a disabled child, or an equivalent non-Luxembourg benefit. 2. In the event that, within the first two years of the child’s life, one of the parents applies for and accepts, notwithstanding the prohibition on combining allowances and even after the allowance ceases to be paid, a non-Luxembourg benefit as referred to in the previous paragraph, the monthly payments already made in connection with the allowance shall be recovered. Where it is combined with a parenting allowance as provided for in Article 299, the parental leave allowance shall be maintained and the parenting allowance already paid shall be offset against the monthly payments due in respect of the parental leave allowance. Where this amount cannot be offset, it shall be recovered. 3. A parent who has received a parenting allowance or an equivalent non-Luxembourg benefit shall not be entitled, in respect of the same child, to the allowance which is granted in respect of leave (taken subsequently) until the child has reached five years of age. 4. The allowance which is granted in respect of leave (taken subsequently) until the child has reached five years of age may not be paid at the same time as a parenting allowance or an equivalent non‑Luxembourg benefit which has been claimed by the other parent in respect of the same child or children, with the exception of an extended parenting allowance granted in respect of a group of three or more children or a disabled child, or an equivalent non-Luxembourg benefit. In the event that both benefits are claimed in respect of the same period, only the parental leave allowance shall be paid. Monthly payments already made in connection with a parenting allowance or an equivalent non‑Luxembourg benefit and combined with the parental leave allowance shall be offset against the monthly payments due in respect of the latter allowance. Where this amount cannot be offset, it shall be recovered. 5. In the event that two benefits are claimed at the same time by the same parent in respect of two different children, the monthly parenting allowance payments accrued during the parental leave period shall be suspended. The amount of an equivalent allowance paid on a monthly basis under a non-Luxembourg scheme shall be deducted from the monthly payment of the parental leave allowance for up to six monthly payments per child. Where this amount cannot be offset, it shall be recovered.’