ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-335/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC – Safety and health of workers)»

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 22 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-29/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 98/83/EC)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 5 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-182/02





Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux and Others

v

Premier ministre and Ministre de l'Aménagement du territoire et de L'Environnement





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

«(Directive 79/409/EEC – Conservation of wild birds – Opening and closing dates for hunting – Derogations)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 May 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Opening and closing dates for hunting – Derogations – Judicious use of certain birds in small numbers – Hunting of wild birds for recreational purposes – Included

(Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7(4) and 9(1)(c))

2.. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Opening and closing dates for hunting – Derogations – Judicious use of certain birds in small numbers – Conditions

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(c))

1.

2.
Case C-151/02





Landeshauptstadt Kiel

v

Norbert Jaeger





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein (Germany))

«(Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Concepts of working time and rest period – On-call service (Bereitschaftsdienst) provided by doctors in hospitals)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruíz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 8 April 2003

Judgment of the Court, 9 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time – Concepts of working time and rest period

(Council Directive 93/104, Art. 2(1) and (2))

2.. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time – Working time – Definition – Doctors – On-call service where physical presence in the hospital is required – Included

(Council Directive 93/104, Art. 2(1))

3.. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time – Doctors – On-call service where physical presence in the hospital is required – National legislation allowing an offset only in respect of periods of activity carried out during the on-call service – Not permissible

(Council Directive 93/104)

4.. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time – Derogations provided for in Article 17 – On-call service in hospitals and similar establishments – Reduction in the daily rest period – Condition – Equivalent compensating rest periods – Limits

(Council Directive 93/104, Art. 17(2))

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-116/02





Erich Gasser GmbH

v

MISAT Srl





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria))

«(Brussels Convention – Article 21 – Lis pendens – Article 17 – Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Obligation to stay proceedings of court second seised designated in an agreement conferring jurisdiction – Excessive duration of proceedings before courts in the Member State of the court first seised)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 9 September 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Full Court), 9 December 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Protocol on the Interpretation of the Convention by the Court of Justice – Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice – Question relying on the submissions of a party to the main proceedings – Whether admissible – Conditions

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968; Protocol of 3 June 1971)

2.. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Lis pendens – Actions brought before courts in different Contracting States – Jurisdiction of the court second seised claimed under an agreement conferring jurisdiction – Not relevant to the obligation to decline jurisdiction

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 21)

3.. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Lis pendens – Actions brought before courts in different Contracting States – Excessive duration of proceedings before courts in the Member State of the court first seised – Not relevant to the application of Article 21 of the Convention

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 21)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-115/02





Administration des douanes et droits indirects

v

Rioglass SA and Transremar SL





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

«(Free movement of goods – Measures having equivalent effect – Procedures for detention under customs control – Goods in transit intended for the market of a non-member country – Spare parts for motor cars)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 20 March 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 23 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Articles 28 EC to 30 EC – Scope – Goods in transit through a Member State and intended for a non-member country – Included

(Arts 28 EC to 30 EC)

2.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – National legislation providing for a procedure for detention by the customs authorities, at the time of intra-Community transit, of goods suspected of infringement of trade mark, lawfully manufactured in a Member State and intended for a non-member country – Justification – Protection of industrial and commercial property – None – Transit not forming part of the specific subject-matter of the trade marks

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

1.

2.
Case C-264/02

Cofinoga Mérignac SA

v

Sylvain Sachithanathan

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Vienne)

(Directives 87/102/EEC and 90/88/EEC – Consumer credit – Consumer information – Annual percentage rate of charge – Variable interest rate – Renewal of an agreement)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Consumer protection in respect of consumer credit – Directive 87/102 – Consumer information – Obligation to provide information before each renewal of a credit agreement – None

(Council Directive 87/102)

Directive 87/02 for the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit does not require, before each renewal, on the existing terms and conditions, of a credit agreement for a specified period entered in the form of a credit facility that may be drawn down in instalments and is linked to a credit card, that is repayable in monthly instalments and bears an interest rate that is expressed to be variable, that the lender inform the borrower in writing of the current annual percentage rate of charge and of the conditions under which the latter may be amended.

(see para. 39, operative part)
Case C-230/02





Grossmann Air Service, Bedarfsluftfahrtunternehmen GmbH & Co. KG

v

Republik Österreich





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria))

«(Public procurement – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures for the award of public contracts – Articles 1(3) and 2(1)(b) – Persons to whom review procedures must be available – Definition of interest in obtaining a public contract)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 16 October 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 12 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures concerning the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Member States under an obligation to provide for review procedures – Access to review procedures – Failure by an undertaking to participate in the contracts award procedure because of allegedly discriminatory specifications – Failure to seek a review of those specifications – Excluded from access to review procedures – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 89/665, Arts 1(3) and 2(1)(b))

2.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures concerning the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Member States under an obligation to provide for review procedures – Access to review procedures – Interest in obtaining the contract lost because no application to a conciliation commission was made first – Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/665, Art. 1(3))

1.

2.
Case C-90/02

Finanzamt Gummersbach

v

Gerhard Bockemühl

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation of Article 18(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive – Conditions for exercise of the right to deduct input VAT – Recipient of a service referred to in Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive – Supply of staff by a taxable person established abroad – Recipient liable for VAT as the person to whom the supply was made – Requirement to hold an invoice – Content of the invoice)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Reverse charge procedure – Taxable person liable for value added tax as the person to whom goods or services provided – Right to deduct – Conditions – Holding of an invoice – No such condition

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 18(1)(d), and 22(3))

Where the reverse charge procedure applies, a taxable person who is liable, as the recipient of services, for the value added tax relating thereto in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directives 91/680 and 92/111, is not obliged to be in possession of an invoice drawn up in accordance with Article 22(3) of the Sixth Directive in order to be able to exercise his right to deduct.

Concerning the arrangements for exercising the right to deduct in cases where the reverse charge procedure applies, the only applicable provision is Article 18(1)(d) of the directive, whereby a taxable person who is liable as the recipient of services for the value added tax relating thereto has only to fulfil the formalities laid down by the Member State concerned. Whilst it is true, in that respect, that Member States must exercise the power to establish those formalities in conformity with one of the aims pursued by the directive, which is to ensure the collection of value added tax and its verification by the tax administration, and true also that an invoice has an important documentary function because it may contain verifiable data, that power may be exercised only in so far as, by the number or the technical nature of such formalities, their imposition does not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to deduct.

For the tax administration, which has the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is, as the recipient of the supply in question, liable to the tax, to require as an additional condition for the right to deduct that that person be in possession of an invoice drawn up in conformity with Article 22(3) of the directive would result in a taxable person being, on the one hand, liable as the recipient of services for the value added tax in question, but, on the other hand, risking not being able to deduct that tax.

(see paras 47, 49, 51-53, operative part)
Case C-389/02

Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG

v

Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzamt Hamburg)

(Excise duties – Exemption from tax on mineral oils – Directive 92/81/EEC – Article 8(1)(c) – The term ‘navigation’)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81 – Exemption of fuel used for ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’ – Meaning

(Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8(1)(c))

Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, which provides for exemption from the harmonised excise duty of mineral oils supplied for use as fuel for ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’, must be interpreted as meaning that that term includes all forms of navigation, irrespective of the purpose of the voyage, when that voyage is made for commercial purposes.

(see para. 29, operative part)
Case C-350/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector – Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC – Requirement for specific statement of grounds of complaint in the reasoned opinion)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Delimitation of the subject-matter of the dispute – Reasoned opinion – Detailed statement of grounds of complaint – Ground of complaint alleged in the application which, although set out in the letter of formal notice, was not set out in the reasoned opinion – Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 CE)

1. In an action for failure to fulfil obligations, whilst the letter of formal notice which comprises an initial succinct résumé of the alleged infringement, may be useful in construing the reasoned opinion, the Commission is none the less obliged to specify precisely in that opinion the grounds of complaint which it already raised more generally in the letter of formal notice and alleges against the Member State concerned, after taking cognisance of any observations submitted by it under the first paragraph of Article 226 EC. That requirement is essential in order to delimit the subject-matter of the dispute prior to any initiation of the contentious procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Article 226 EC and in order to ensure that the Member State in question is accurately apprised of the grounds of complaint maintained against it by the Commission and can thus bring an end to the alleged infringements or put forward its arguments in defence prior to any application to the Court by the Commission.

Therefore, a ground of complaint alleged in the Commission’s application which was set out in the letter of formal notice but was not set out in the reasoned opinion must be regarded as irregular.

(see paras 21, 28)

2. In the context of an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined as at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.

(see para. 31)
Case C-159/02

Gregory Paul Turner

v

Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit and Others

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords)

(Brussels Convention – Proceedings brought in a Contracting State – Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings – Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings – Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State)

Summary of the Judgment

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Injunction granted by a court of a Contracting State prohibiting a party from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court in another Contracting State – Not permissible – Incompatible with the principle of mutual cooperation underlying the Convention

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968)

The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as precluding the grant of an injunction whereby a court of a Contracting State prohibits a party to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court of another Contracting State, even where that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing proceedings.

Such an injunction constitutes interference with the jurisdiction of the foreign court which, as such, is incompatible with the system of the Convention. That interference cannot be justified by the fact that it is only indirect and is intended to prevent an abuse of process by the party concerned, because the judgment made as to the abusive nature of that conduct implies an assessment of the appropriateness of bringing proceedings before a court of another Member State, which runs counter to the principle of mutual trust which underpins the Convention and prohibits a court, except in special cases occurring only at the stage of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, from reviewing the jurisdiction of the court of another Member State.

(see paras 26-28, 31, operative part)
Case C-397/02

Clinique La Ramée ASBL

and

Winterthur Europe Assurance SA

v

Jean-Pierre Riehl

and

Council of the European Union

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles)

(Officials – Social benefits – Communities’ right of subrogation to an official’s rights against the third party liable for an actionable event)

Summary of the Judgment

Officials – Communities’ right of subrogation to an official’s rights against the third party liable for an actionable event – Limits – Application of national law to determine the extent of the obligation to compensate – National legislation excluding a survivor’s pension from that obligation

(Staff Regulations, Art. 85a(1))

The subrogation provided for by Article 85a of the Staff Regulations is subrogation by operation of law. It takes place, within the limits of the obligations devolving upon the Communities under the provisions of the Staff Regulations, upon the occurrence of the harmful event for which a third party is liable.

However, it follows clearly from Article 85a(1) that the Communities do not have greater rights against the third party than the victim or those entitled under him.

The purpose of Article 85a of the Staff Regulations is not to alter the national rules applicable for determining whether and to what extent there is liability on the part of the third party who caused the injury. That third party’s liability remains subject to the substantive rules which are normally to be applied by the national court before which the victim’s proceedings are brought, that is to say, in principle, the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the injury has occurred.

It follows that if the national law on liability applicable to this case excludes a survivor’s pension, such as that provided for by Articles 79 and 79(a) of the Staff Regulations, from the scope of the compensation obligation of the perpetrator of a wrongful act, the Communities cannot obtain reimbursement of the sums corresponding to that survivor’s pension by means of the subrogation under Article 85a of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 15-18)
Case C-463/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Sweden

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 77/388/EEC – VAT – Article 11(A)(1)(a) – Basis of assessment – Subsidy directly linked to the price – Regulation (EC) No 603/95 – Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Basis of assessment – Supply of goods and services – Subsidies directly linked to the price – Meaning – Aid granted in the dried fodder sector – Exclusion – National scheme failing to levy value added tax on that aid – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11(A)(1)(a))

Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, is intended to subject the full value of goods or services to VAT by providing that the basis of assessment comprises subsidies directly linked to the price of the transaction in question, paid to taxable persons. A Member State which does not levy the tax on aid paid under Regulation No 603/95 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder does not fail to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

‘Subsidies linked directly to the price’ include only subsidies which constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.

The conditions for the aid at issue to be subject to VAT are not met in respect of the sale by a processing undertaking, after drying, of fodder purchased from producers of green fodder, since, in such a case, the aid is not paid specifically to a processing undertaking to enable it to supply dried fodder to a purchaser at a price which is lower than on the world market. Nor are those conditions met as regards the special-order contracts concluded by such an undertaking with a producer of green fodder, as the aid which the processing undertaking receives is not paid for its benefit in such a case and that undertaking merely functions as an intermediary between the body which distributes the aid and the fodder producer.

(see paras 31-32, 36-37, 41, 43, 47, 50)
Case C-414/02

Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul

v

Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria))

(Community Customs Code – Article 202 – Accrual of the customs debt – Unlawful introduction into the Community customs territory – Meaning of ‘debtor’ of such a debt – Extension to the employer of liability for the debt of an employee who has committed irregularities in the performance of customs obligations)

Summary of the Judgment

Customs union – Accrual of a customs debt following the unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘debtor’ – Employer of the person who introduced the goods – Included by national legislation – Requirements for permissibility

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 202(3))

Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which, in the event of unlawful introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods subject to import duties, makes the employer co‑debtor of the customs debt of the employee who introduced those goods in the conduct of the employer’s affairs, so long as such legislation requires that the employer took part in the introduction of the goods and knew or ought reasonably to have known that such introduction was unlawful.

(see para. 45, operative part)