ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Communities – Representation before the national courts – Delegation by the Commission of its power of representation to another institution – Conditions

(Art. 282 EC)

Summary

The authority by which the European Commission delegated to another Community institution its power under Article 282 EC, to represent the European Communities before a national court in a dispute concerning that institution, was validly granted, regardless of whether or not that authority specified by name a natural person empowered to represent the institution to which the power was delegated. In such cases, both the institution and the natural person, if specified, could authorise a lawyer to represent the European Communities.

(see para. 25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b), first indent

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(1)(b), first indent)

Summary

The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of distance selling, the place where the goods were or should have been delivered pursuant to the contract must be determined on the basis of the provisions of that contract.

In order to verify whether the place of delivery is determined ‘under the contract’, the national court seised must take account of all the relevant terms and clauses of that contract which are capable of clearly identifying that place, including terms and clauses which are generally recognised and applied through the usages of international trade or commerce, such as the Incoterms ‘International commercial terms’ drawn up by the International Chamber of Commerce in the version published in 2000.

If it is impossible to determine the place of delivery on that basis, without referring to the substantive law applicable to the contract, the place of delivery is the place where the physical transfer of the goods took place, as a result of which the purchaser obtained, or should have obtained, actual power of disposal over those goods at the final destination of the sales transaction.

(see para. 26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Moulded plastic false nails and false nail sets

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I; Commission Regulation No 1417/2007, Annex)

Summary

Regulation No 1417/2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is valid in so far as it classifies the false nails and, thereby, the false nail sets described in its annex under subheading 3926 90 97 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out 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 1549/2006.

(see paras 51-52, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – General or hypothetical questions – Determination by the Court whether it has jurisdiction – Question referred for a preliminary ruling of a hypothetical nature – Inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 42)

Summary

The procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of Union law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them.

In the context of that cooperation, questions relating to Union law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may thus refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Union law sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. The Court’s function in preliminary rulings is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions.

A reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 42(3) of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, brought in the context of an action for annulment of a national legislative measure, the purpose of which is to establish the basic national regulations applicable to certain aid schemes set up by that regulation, when that legislative measure has been repealed and the referring court has not provided the Court with information explaining how the reference has a real and specific bearing on the dispute in the main proceedings, must be declared inadmissible because the question referred is hypothetical.

(see paras 16-18, 23, 25)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EC/Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons – Equal treatment – Access to self-employed activity and the exercise thereof – Self-employed frontier workers

(EC/Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons, Annex I, Art. 15(1))

Summary

The principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons precludes legislation of a Member State under which the competent authority of that Member State may object to an agricultural lease – relating to land located in a given area of the territory of that Member State and concluded between a resident of that Member State and a frontier-zone resident of the other contracting party – on the grounds that the land leased is used for producing agricultural products intended for export, free of duty, outside the internal market of the European Union and so gives rise to distortion of competition, if the application of that legislation affects a much greater number of nationals of the other Contracting Party than nationals of the Member State on whose territory that legislation applies. It is for the national court to determine whether that latter situation in fact exists.

(see para. 36, operative part)
Case C-405/10

Criminal proceedings

against

QB

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal)

(Protection of the environment – Regulations (EC) Nos 1013/2006 and 1418/2007 – Control of shipments of waste – Prohibition on the shipment of spent catalysts to Lebanon)

Summary of the Judgment

Environment – Waste – Shipments – Export for recovery of waste – Export to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1013/2006, Arts 36(1)(f) and 37; Commission Regulation No 1418/2007)

Articles 36(1)(f) and 37 of Regulation No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Regulation No 1418/2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006 to certain countries to which the Decision of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply, as amended by Regulation No 740/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the export from the European Union to Lebanon of waste, intended for recovery, which falls within category B1120 in List B in Part 1 of Annex V to Regulation No 1013/2006 is prohibited.

As the reference to category B1120, entered in column (a) in the ‘Lebanon’ section of the Annex to Regulation No 1418/2007, indicates, the Lebanese authorities have officially notified the Commission, in their response to the Commission’s request under Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006, that the shipment of such waste from the European Union to Lebanon, for recovery in that country, was prohibited.

That is the only interpretation consistent with the objectives pursued in this context by that regulation and it cannot be called into question by the fact that, in the case of Lebanon, waste in category B1120 was entered in column (d) of the Annex to Regulation No 1418/2007.

Moreover, the question whether the provisions of EU law are, in such circumstances, clear enough to yield the constituent elements of the national law definition of an offence, in accordance with the principle that every criminal offence and penalty must have a legal basis, which constitutes a general principle of EU law laid down in, inter alia, Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and which the Member States are required to observe when they prescribe a penalty to punish failure to comply with provisions of EU law, falls to be assessed by the national court.

(see paras 35, 38, 41, 47-49, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374 – Scope

(Council Directive 85/374, Arts 1, 3 and 13)

Summary

The liability of a service provider which, in the course of providing services such as treatment given in a hospital, uses defective equipment or products of which it is not the producer within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34, and thereby causes damage to the recipient of the service does not fall within the scope of the directive. Directive 85/374 does not therefore prevent a Member State from applying rules under which such a provider is liable for damage thus caused, even in the absence of any fault on its part, provided, however, that the injured person and/or the service provider retain the right to put in issue the producer’s liability on the basis of the directive when the conditions laid down by the latter are fulfilled.

(see para. 39, operative part)
Case C-594/10

T.G. van Laarhoven

v

Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

‛Sixth VAT Directive — Right to deduct input tax — Limitation — Use of goods forming part of the assets of a business for the private use of the taxable person — Fiscal treatment of private use of goods that are assets of the business’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Taxable transactions — Taxable amount — Use by the taxable person, for both business and private purposes, of vehicles forming part of his business

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 6(2), first para. (a), and 11A(1)(c))

Article 6(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, read together with Article 11A(1)(c) of the same directive, must be interpreted as precluding national fiscal legislation which initially authorises a taxable person whose passenger vehicles are used for both business and private purposes to deduct input value added tax immediately and in full, but which subsequently provides, as regards private use of those vehicles, for annual taxation based — for determining the taxable amount of value added tax owed in a given financial year — on a flat-rate method of calculating expenses relating to such use which does not take account on a proportional basis of the actual extent of that private use.

(see para. 38, operative part)

Case C-594/10

T.G. van Laarhoven

v

Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

‛Sixth VAT Directive — Right to deduct input tax — Limitation — Use of goods forming part of the assets of a business for the private use of the taxable person — Fiscal treatment of private use of goods that are assets of the business’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Taxable transactions — Taxable amount — Use by the taxable person, for both business and private purposes, of vehicles forming part of his business

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 6(2), first para. (a), and 11A(1)(c))

Article 6(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, read together with Article 11A(1)(c) of the same directive, must be interpreted as precluding national fiscal legislation which initially authorises a taxable person whose passenger vehicles are used for both business and private purposes to deduct input value added tax immediately and in full, but which subsequently provides, as regards private use of those vehicles, for annual taxation based — for determining the taxable amount of value added tax owed in a given financial year — on a flat-rate method of calculating expenses relating to such use which does not take account on a proportional basis of the actual extent of that private use.

(see para. 38, operative part)
Case C-414/10

VELECLAIR SA

v

Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 17(2)(b) — Taxation of a product imported from a third country — National legislation — Right to deduct VAT on importation — Condition — Actual payment of VAT by the taxable person’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Origin and scope of the right to deduct

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(2)(b))

Article 17(2)(b) of Sixth [Council] Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to make the right to deduct value added tax on importation conditional upon the actual prior payment of that tax by the taxable person when that taxable person is also the holder of the right to deduction.

(see para. 35, operative part)

Case C-414/10

VELECLAIR SA

v

Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 17(2)(b) — Taxation of a product imported from a third country — National legislation — Right to deduct VAT on importation — Condition — Actual payment of VAT by the taxable person’

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Origin and scope of the right to deduct

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(2)(b))

Article 17(2)(b) of Sixth [Council] Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to make the right to deduct value added tax on importation conditional upon the actual prior payment of that tax by the taxable person when that taxable person is also the holder of the right to deduction.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Keywords

Summary

Keywords Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single area payment scheme — Incorrect area declared (Commission Regulation No 1973/2004, Art. 138(1)) Summary Article 138(1) of Regulation No 1973/2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials must be interpreted as meaning that the measures provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of that provision, consisting in excluding a farmer from receiving aid for the year in which he made a false declaration of the eligible area and reducing the aid he can claim within the following three calendar years by an amount corresponding to the difference between the area declared and the area determined, do not constitute criminal penalties. (see para. 46, operative part)

Case C-489/10

Łukasz Marcin Bonda

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy)

‛Common agricultural policy — Single area payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 — Article 138(1) — Exclusion from receiving aid if the area declared is not correct — Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty — Rule against the overlapping of criminal penalties — Ne bis in idem principle’

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single area payment scheme — Incorrect area declared

(Commission Regulation No 1973/2004, Art. 138(1))

Article 138(1) of Regulation No 1973/2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials must be interpreted as meaning that the measures provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of that provision, consisting in excluding a farmer from receiving aid for the year in which he made a false declaration of the eligible area and reducing the aid he can claim within the following three calendar years by an amount corresponding to the difference between the area declared and the area determined, do not constitute criminal penalties.

(see para. 46, operative part)
It is for a national court, ruling on an action for an injunction, brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national law, to assess, with regard to Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the unfair nature of a term included in the general business conditions of consumer contracts by which a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral amendment of fees connected with the service to be provided, without however setting out clearly the method of fixing those fees or specifying a valid reason for that amendment. In making this assessment, the national court must determine, in particular, whether, in light of all the terms appearing in the general business conditions of consumer contracts which include the contested term, and in the light of the national legislation setting out the rights and obligations that could supplement those provided by the general business conditions at issue, the reasons for, or the method of, the amendment of the fees connected with the service to be provided are set out in plain, intelligible language and, as the case may be, whether consumers have a right to terminate the contract.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) and (2) thereof, does not preclude the declaration of invalidity of an unfair term included in the general business conditions of consumer contracts in an action for an injunction, provided for in Article 7 of that directive, brought against a seller or supplier in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national legislation from producing, in accordance with that legislation, effects with regard to all consumers who concluded with the seller or supplier concerned a contract to which the same general business conditions apply, including with regard to those consumers who were not party to the injunction proceedings.

Moreover, where the unfair nature of a term in the general business conditions has been acknowledged in such proceedings, national courts are required, of their own motion, and also with regard to the future, to take such action thereon as is provided for by national law in order to ensure that consumers who have concluded a contract with the seller or supplier to which those general business conditions apply are not bound by that term.

(see para. 44, operative part 2)
Article 3(2)(e) of Directive 2003/109 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as covering two cases, namely, first, that of third-country nationals who reside solely on temporary grounds and, second, that of third-country nationals whose residence permits have been formally limited.

In that regard, the concept of ‘residence permit which has been formally limited’ does not include a fixed-period residence permit, granted to a specific group of persons, the validity of which may be extended indefinitely without however offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration where such a formal limitation does not prevent the long-term residence of the third-country national in the Member State concerned.

Article 3(2) of that directive excludes from its scope residence of third-country nationals which, whilst lawful and of a possibly continuous nature, does not prima facie reflect any intention on the part of such nationals to settle on a long-term basis in the territory of the Member States. Accordingly, the fact that a residence permit contains a formal restriction does not in itself give any indication as to whether that third-country national might settle on a long-term basis in the Member State, notwithstanding the existence of such a restriction. Thus, a formally limited residence permit within the meaning of national law, but whose formal limitation does not prevent the long-term residence of the third-country national concerned, cannot be classified as a formally limited residence permit within the meaning of Article 3(2)(e) of Directive 2003/109, as otherwise the achievement of the objectives pursued by the Directive, which is aimed primarily at the integration of third-country nationals who are settled on a long-term basis in the Member States, would be jeopardised and, therefore, that directive would be deprived of its effectiveness.

(see paras 38, 45, 47-50, 51, 56, operative part)