ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Special scheme for travel agencies – Scope – Economic operators other than travel agents or tour operators offering services involving the organisation of language and study trips abroad – Included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 26)

Summary

According to the case‑law, the underlying reasons for the special scheme for travel agents and tour operators provided for by Article 26 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes are equally valid where the trader is not a travel agent or tour operator within the normal meaning of those terms, but effects identical transactions in the context of another activity. However, the trader should not be taxed under that article where the services bought in from third parties, in order to provide services generally associated with those operations, remain purely ancillary in relation to the in-house services.

However, where a trader habitually offers its customers travel services, in addition to services associated with the language training and education of its customers, which cannot be carried out without a substantial effect on the package price charged, such as travel to the host State and/or the stay in that State, such services are not to be equated with purely ancillary services. Such services do not represent a marginal share in relation to the corresponding services associated with the language training and education which that operator offers its customers.

In those circumstances, Article 26 of the Sixth Directive should be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a trader who offers services involving the organisation of language and study trips abroad and which, in consideration of the payment of an all-inclusive sum, provides in its own name to its customers a stay abroad of three to 10 months and buys in services from other taxable persons for that purpose.

(see paras 22, 24, 27-29, 48, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Screwdriver ends

Summary

1. When the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria which will enable the latter to classify the products at issue correctly in the Combined Nomenclature, rather than to effect that classification itself, a fortiori since the Court does not necessarily have available to it all the information which is essential in that regard. In any event the national court is in a better position to do so.

(see para. 23)

2. Heading 8204 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 2388/2000, is to be interpreted as not covering separately imported screwdriver bits with square drive for slotted-head, cross-head, TX (internal Torx) and Allen screws. By contrast, the same heading is to be interpreted as covering separately imported parts of the square system which are not in direct contact with the fastener during use and also separately imported square-system torque meter wrenches.

(see paras 28, 33, 37, operative part 1-3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Award of contracts

(Council Directive 92/50, Art. 29, first para., subparas (e) and (f))

Summary

Article 29 of subparagraphs (e) and (f) of the first paragraph of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts enables Member States to exclude any candidate who ‘has not fulfilled obligations’ relating to the payment of social security contributions and taxes in accordance with national legal provisions.

That provision does not preclude a national law or administrative practice according to which a service provider, who has not fulfilled obligations relating to social security contributions and taxes by having paid in full when the period prescribed for submitting the request to participate in the contract expires, may subsequently regularise his position

– pursuant to a tax amnesty or leniency measures adopted by the State, or

– pursuant to an administrative arrangement of payment in instalments or debt relief, or

– by bringing administrative or legal proceedings,

provided that, within the period prescribed by national law or administrative practice, he provides evidence that he has benefited from such measures or arrangement or that he has brought such proceedings within that period.

Article 29 of the Directive does not provide in this field for uniform application of the grounds of exclusion mentioned therein at Community level, since the Member States may choose not to apply those grounds of exclusion at all or to incorporate them into national law with varying degrees of rigour. In that context the Member States have the power to make the criteria laid down in Article 29 of the Directive less onerous or more flexible.

It is therefore for national rules to specify the content and scope of the obligations at issue and the conditions for their fulfilment. It is also for national rules to determine the date by which or the period within which the persons concerned must have made the payments corresponding to their obligations or must have proved that the conditions for subsequent regularisation have been fulfilled. However, the principles of transparency and equal treatment require that the period be determined with absolute certainty and made public, in order that the persons concerned may know exactly the procedural requirements and be sure that the same requirements apply to all candidates. Furthermore, merely commencing payment at the relevant time, proof of intention to pay or proof of financial capacity to regularise the position after that time are not sufficient.

(see paras 23-24, 31-33, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Choice and designation of special protection areas

(Council Directives 79/409, Art. 4(1) and (2), and 92/43, Art. 6(4))

2. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Temporal application

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3) and (4))

Summary

1. The Member States’ margin of discretion in choosing the most suitable territories for classification as special protection areas under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds concerns not the appropriateness of classifying as special protection areas the territories which appear the most suitable according to ornithological criteria, but only the application of those criteria for identifying the most suitable territories for conservation of the species listed in Annex I.

Moreover, when designating such an area and defining its boundaries, Member States may not take account of economic requirements as constituting a general interest superior to that represented by the ecological objective of the Birds Directive or as constituting imperative reasons of overriding public interest of the kind referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(see paras 33, 40)

2. The principle that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must be subjected to an environmental assessment does not apply where the application for authorisation for a project was formally lodged before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition of a directive.

That formal criterion is the only one which accords with the principle of legal certainty and preserves a directive’s effectiveness. The reason for that is that a directive such as Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora is primarily designed to cover large-scale projects which will most often require a long time to complete. It would therefore not be appropriate for the relevant procedures, which are already complex at national level and which were formally initiated prior to the date of the expiry of the period for transposing the directive, to be made more cumbersome and time-consuming by the specific requirements imposed by the directive and for situations already established to be affected by it.

(see paras 56-57)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Meaning

(Art. 81(1) EC)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

Summary

1. In order to constitute an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, it is sufficient that an act or conduct which is apparently unilateral be the expression of the concurrence of wills of at least two parties, the form in which that concurrence is expressed not being by itself decisive. To find otherwise would have the effect of reversing the burden of proof of the existence of a breach of the competition rules and contravening the principle of presumption of innocence.

A call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to its authorised dealers does not constitute a unilateral act but an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC if it forms part of a set of continuous business relations governed by a general agreement drawn up in advance. However, that does not imply that any call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to dealers constitutes an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC and does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to prove that there was a concurrence of wills on the part of the parties to the dealership agreement in each specific case.

The will of the parties may result from both the clauses of the dealership agreement in question and from the conduct of the parties, and in particular from the possibility of there being tacit acquiescence by the dealers to the measure adopted by the motor vehicle manufacturer.

A case-specific examination of the compliance or non-compliance of a dealership agreement with the competition rules is not necessarily decisive, since the possibility that a call which is contrary to the competition rules may be regarded as being authorised by seemingly neutral clauses of a dealership agreement cannot be automatically excluded.

(see paras 35-39, 43-46)

2. It is clear from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to find the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. When the Court of First Instance has found or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.

(see para. 49)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Direct effect – Scope

(Art. 249, third para., EC)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), second subpara.)

Summary

1. Individuals are entitled to rely before national courts, against the Member State concerned, on the provisions of a directive which appear, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise whenever the full application of the directive is not in fact secured, that is to say, not only where the directive has not been implemented or has been implemented incorrectly, but also where the national measures correctly implementing the directive are not being applied in such a way as to achieve the result sought by it.

(see para. 29)

2. A private person who is in competition with a body governed by public law and alleges that that body is, in respect of the activities in which it engages as a public authority, treated as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes or undertaxed is entitled to rely, in proceedings between a private person and the national tax authorities, on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. Since the bodies and activities to which the rule of treatment as non-taxable persons applies is clearly defined by Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, that provision fulfils the criteria for direct effect.

(see paras 30, 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Community rules – Substantive scope – Benefits covered and benefits excluded

(Council Regulation No 1408/71)

2. Citizenship of the European Union – Right of freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States – Social advantages

(Art. 18 EC)

Summary

1. A benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit in so far as it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position and provided that it concerns one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71.

In that regard, an allowance granted to unemployed persons aged over 50, the grant of which is not of a discretionary nature, which is intended to cover the risk linked to involuntary loss of employment where the worker retains his capacity for work and the recipients of which are subject to the same conditions as other workers seeking an unemployment allowance, must be regarded as an unemployment allowance that falls within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 even if, under a national provision, the recipient is exempt from registering as a job-seeker.

(see paras 22, 29, 34)

2. Freedom of movement and residence, conferred on every citizen of the Union by Article 18 EC, does not preclude a residence clause which is imposed on an unemployed person over 50 years of age who is exempt from the requirement of proving that he is available for work, as a condition for the retention of his entitlement to unemployment benefit. Although such a measure is a restriction on the freedoms conferred by Article 18 EC on every citizen of the European Union, it is justified by the need to monitor the employment and family situation of unemployed persons. That clause allows national authority inspectors to check whether the situation of a recipient of the unemployment allowance has undergone changes which may have an effect on the benefit granted. That justification is accordingly based on objective considerations of public interest independent of the nationality of the persons concerned. Less restrictive measures, such as the production of documents or certificates, would mean that the monitoring would no longer be unexpected and would consequently be less effective, with the result that the measure in question is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

(see paras 39, 41-43, 45-48, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/12

(Council Directive 92/12)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

1. Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, which seeks to define the customs and tax rules applicable to those products, does not seek to govern specifically the protection of the public policy interest requirements referred to in Article 30 EC, with the result that the Member States, in accordance with the Treaty, retain their competence to adopt the measures necessary to protect those requirements.

(see para. 15)

2. Articles 28 EC and 30 EC do not preclude a system which makes the importation of undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength of more than 80% subject to obtaining prior authorisation, unless it appears that, in the circumstances of law and of fact which characterise the situation in the Member State concerned, the protection of public health and public order against the harm caused by alcohol can be secured by measures having less effect on intra-Community trade.

(see para. 40, operative part 1)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (Council Directive 89/391, Arts 2(1), (2) and 4 (see paras 22, 26, 40)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 35)

3. Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incomplete transposition of Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 4 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) – Non-civilian personnel in public authorities – Scope of Directive 89/391

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose in their entirety into its national legislation Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 4 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, as regards non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Tax legislation

(Arts 49 EC and 50 EC)

Summary

A Member State which obliges principals and contractors who have recourse to foreign contracting partners not registered with the authorities in that Member State to withhold 15% of the sum payable for work carried out and imposes on those principals and contractors joint and several liability for the tax debts of such contracting partners fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.

The withholding and the joint and several liability obligations, even if applied to an unregistered service provider whether he is established in the Member State in question or in another Member State, constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services since they are likely to deter providers who are not registered and not established in that Member State from having access to the market of that Member State in order to provide services there, or to deter principals and contractors from using the services of those providers.

The need to combat tax evasion is not sufficient to justify application of the withholding and joint and several liability obligations, generally and on a precautionary basis, to all service providers who are not established and not registered in the Member State in question, since some of those providers are in principle not liable for the taxes and deductions whose recovery those measures are designed to ensure, and less restrictive means exist of ensuring the recovery of the taxes and deductions for which such providers may be liable in certain cases.

(see paras 30-32, 36-37, 42, operative part 1)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 32-34)

2. Social Policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (Council Directive 89/391, Art. 7(5) and (8)) (see paras 36-47)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incomplete transposition of Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) – Definitions of capabilities and aptitudes of workers designated by the employer to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Sweden to pay their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 38(1)(c))

Summary

1. Although it is true that the subject-matter of proceedings brought under Article 226 EC is circumscribed by the pre-litigation procedure provided for in that provision and that, consequently, the Commission’s reasoned opinion and the application must be based on the same objections, that requirement cannot go so far as to mean that in every case exactly the same wording must be used in both, where the subject-matter of the proceedings has not been extended or altered but simply narrowed. Accordingly, in its application the Commission may clarify its initial grounds of objection provided, however, that it does not alter the subject-matter of the dispute.

(see para. 18)

2. It is clear from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, and from the case-law relating to that provision, that an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and of fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the heads of claim to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on an objection.

(see para. 22)
Case C-126/04

Heineken Brouwerijen BV

v

Hoofdproductschap Akkerbouw

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven)

(Cereals – Import regime – Community tariff quota for barley for malting – Discrimination)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 13 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Import regime – Tariff quota – Barley – Quota referring only to high-graded barley – Breach of the principle of non-discrimination – None

(Art. 34( 2), second para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 1269/1999 and 822/2001)

The restriction of the scope of the Community tariff quotas opened by Regulations Nos 1269/1999 and 822/2001 to high-graded barley only, intended for the production of malt to be used in the manufacture of beers aged in tanks containing beechwood, does not constitute a breach of the principle of non-discrimination where it is objectively justified by the differences between that barley on the one hand, and barley intended for the production of other beers on the other.

(see para. 22)