ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 6 of First Directive 68/151 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State from restricting to members or creditors of a company, the central works council or the company's works council the right to apply for imposition of the penalty provided for by the law of that Member State in the event of failure by a company to fulfil the obligations regarding disclosure of annual accounts laid down by First Directive 68/151.

Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, which refers to the need to protect the interests of others generally, without distinguishing or excluding any categories falling within the ambit of that term, and the fourth recital in the preamble to and Article 3 of Directive 68/151, which confirm the concern to enable any interested persons to obtain information, preclude Article 6 of the directive from being interpreted in such a way as to restrict to creditors of the company the right to apply for imposition of penalties.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Prohibition against levying other national taxes characterised as turnover taxes - Purpose - Definition of `turnover taxes' - Scope - Charging of a levy aimed at financing chambers of commerce - Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17(2) and 33)

Summary

The Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, and in particular Articles 17(2) and 33 thereof, does not preclude a levy aimed at financing chambers of commerce which is payable by members whose turnover exceeds a certain amount, is calculated in principle on the basis of the VAT included in the price of the goods and services supplied to them, and is not deductible from the VAT payable by them on the commercial transactions which they carry out.

Such a levy is not imposed on the movement of goods and services and does not affect commercial transactions in a manner comparable to VAT. On the one hand, it is calculated not on the basis of the supply of goods, the provision of services and imports by the taxable person but, on the contrary, on the basis of those made on his behalf by his suppliers; the basis of assessment of the levy is not therefore the amount obtained or to be obtained by way of consideration for the business operations carried out by the taxable person. On the other hand, it is not charged at all stages of production and distribution and, in particular, it does not affect the final stage of the sale to the consumer.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional milk levy - Choice of Formula A - Levy amount due - Meaning - Amount objectively payable by a producer by reason of the fact that he has actually exceeded his reference quantity - Date on which it becomes payable

(Commission Regulation No 1546/88, Art. 15(4))

Summary

Article 15(4) of Regulation No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional milk levy, under which purchasers of milk are required to pay to the competent agency any levy amount due, must be construed as meaning that this amount refers, within the context of Formula A providing for the levy to be collected from each milk producer by the purchaser, to the amount objectively payable by a producer by reason of the fact that he has actually exceeded his reference quantity, even where the exact amount can be established only after verification of the quantities delivered, and becomes payable on the date laid down in that provision, that is to say, not more than three months following the end of each 12-month period, namely on the following 30 June.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2 Association of the overseas countries and territories - Council Decision temporarily authorising exemptions, subject to monitoring by the Commission, from the octroi de mer levy applied in the French overseas departments - Exemptions from octroi de mer - Conditions under which permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 226; Council Decision 89/688, Arts 1 and 2)

Summary

3 Within the framework of proceedings brought under Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court does not have jurisdiction to give a ruling on the compatibility of a national measure with Community law. However, it does have jurisdiction to supply the national court with a ruling on the interpretation of Community law so as to enable that court to determine whether such compatibility exists in order to decide the case before it.

4 On a proper construction, Decision 89/688 concerning the dock dues (octroi de mer) in the French overseas departments precludes exemptions of a general or systematic order, which would thus amount to the reintroduction of a charge having an effect equivalent to that of a customs duty. That decision does, however, authorise exemptions which are necessary, proportionate and precisely determined and which respect the strict conditions laid down in Article 2(3) thereof, interpreted in the light of the limits laid down in Article 226 of the Treaty.

Those conditions include, first of all, the general rule, stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the decision, that octroi de mer is to apply in principle to all products whether imported into or produced in the French overseas departments. Next, the system of exemptions constitutes an exception to that general rule. It must disturb the common market as little as possible and may thus not adversely affect the terms of trade to an extent contrary to the common interest. Monitoring of those conditions is the responsibility of the Community institutions, in particular the Commission, which must assess the extent to which such measures are necessary and proportionate. Finally, that system is a measure of support for local production faced with difficulties as a result of isolation and distance from metropolitan France, its aim being to promote the economic and social development of the French overseas departments in that it must contribute to the promotion or maintenance of an economic activity in those departments and be in line with an economic and social development strategy.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Approximation of laws concerning animal health - Veterinary and zootechnical checks in intra-Community trade in live animals and products of animal origin - Directives 89/662 and 90/425 - Emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom - Powers of the Commission - Misuse of powers - Breach of the principle of proportionality - None

(Council Directives 89/662 and 90/425; Commission Decision 96/239)

Summary

In adopting Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, the Commission acted within the framework of the powers conferred on it by Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade, and did not misuse its powers or breach the principle of proportionality.

First, the conditions governing the adoption of safeguard measures in accordance with those two directives were fulfilled, particularly since the power to adopt such measures is justified by the fact that a zoonosis, disease or other cause is likely to constitute a serious hazard. Second, having regard, in particular, to the fact that the directives are drafted in very wide terms, without imposing any restrictions as to the temporal or territorial scope of the measures concerned, it does not appear that the Commission clearly exceeded the bounds of its broad discretion in seeking to contain the disease within the territory of the United Kingdom by banning exports from that territory to other Member States and to third countries.

Furthermore, the decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, since the Commission was prompted to act by concerns as to the risk of transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans, after examining the measures adopted by the United Kingdom and consulting the Scientific Veterinary Committee and the Standing Veterinary Committee, its exclusive or main purpose not being to allay public concern.

As regards the principle of proportionality, it was open to the Commission, in view of the great uncertainty as to the risks posed by the animals and products concerned, to take the protective measures in issue without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks became fully apparent.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Supply of services for consideration - Concept - Foreign exchange transactions - Included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 2(1))

2 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Taxable amount - Supply of services - Foreign exchange transactions - Taxable amount consisting of the overall result of the transactions of the supplier of the services over a given period of time

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

Summary

1 Foreign exchange transactions, performed even without commission or direct fees, are supplies of services provided in return for consideration, that is to say supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. More particularly, transactions between parties for the purchase by one party of an agreed amount in one currency against the sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in another currency, both such amounts being deliverable on the same value date, and in respect of which transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally, electronically or in writing) the currencies involved, the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and sold, which party will purchase which currency and the value date, constitute supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.

2 Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be construed as meaning that, in foreign exchange transactions in which no fees or commission are calculated with regard to certain specific transactions, the taxable amount is the overall result of the transactions of the supplier of the services over a given period of time. Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive provides that the taxable amount is, in respect of supplies of services, that which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser for such supplies. Determining the consideration comes down to determining what the bank in question receives for foreign exchange transactions, that is to say the remuneration on foreign exchange transactions which it can actually take for itself.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Directives - Direct effect - Consequences - Possibility of enforcing against individuals national rules concerning time-limits for instituting proceedings before proper transposition of a directive - Whether permissible - Conditions

2 Community law - Direct effect - National charges incompatible with Community law - Repayment - Procedures - Application of national law - Payment of interest

Summary

1 Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a time-limit under national law which is reckoned from the date of payment of the charges in question, even if, at that date, the directive had not yet been properly transposed into national law, provided that that time-limit is not less favourable for actions based on Community law than for actions based on domestic law and does not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law and provided also that it has not been established that the conduct of the national authorities, in conjunction with the existence of the contested time-limit, has had the effect of depriving the plaintiff of any opportunity of enforcing his rights before the national courts.

2 In the absence of Community rules on reimbursement of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, second, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

Detailed national rules for reimbursement conform with the principle of equivalence if they apply without distinction to actions alleging infringements of Community law and to those alleging infringements of national law, with respect to the same kind of charges or dues. That principle cannot, however, be interpreted as obliging a Member State to extend its most favourable rules governing recovery under national law to all actions for repayment of charges or dues levied in breach of Community law.

It follows that Community law does not preclude, in the event of the repayment of charges levied in breach thereof, payment of interest calculated by methods less favourable than those applicable under the ordinary rules governing actions for the recovery of sums paid but not due between private individuals, provided that those methods apply in the same way to such actions brought under Community law as to those brought under national law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Imports of cane sugar originating in the overseas countries and territories - Measures permitting the sugars produced in the French overseas departments to be marketed - `Refinery' qualifying for the aid - Concept - Unit forming part of an industrial complex also including a unit for the extraction of sugar-bearing liquids obtained from beet - Exclusion

(Council Regulation No 1785/81, Art. 9(4), third subpara., as amended by Regulation No 1482/85)

Summary

The purpose of the system of aid set up by Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector is to facilitate the marketing in the European regions of the Community of raw cane sugar produced in the French overseas departments and, in parallel and at the same time, to ensure regular supplies to the Community refineries, as defined in the third subparagraph of the said Article 9(4).

A production unit, that is to say an industrial plant which functions independently and without any link with any other unit, whose sole activity consists in refining raw sugar and syrups extracted from cane, therefore constitutes a refinery within the meaning of the aforementioned provision, and that definition does not cover a refining unit forming part of an industrial complex which also includes a first-stage unit for the extraction of sugar-bearing liquids obtained from beet.

Furthermore, for the unit in question to be described as a refinery within the meaning set out above, its activity must at all times be given over to the refining of raw sugar and cane syrups and may not also involve, intermittently, the refining of sugar-bearing liquids obtained from beet, even separately, if it is not to upset the balance and interdependence, which the Community rules seek to achieve, between the production of and outlets for raw cane sugar from the French overseas departments and regular supplies to specialised refineries.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Need for precise transposition into national law

(EC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.; Council Directive 80/778)

2 Commission - Powers - Provision of guarantees that specific practices are compatible with Community law - Not possible without specific authorisation - Authorisation of practices contrary to Community law - Precluded

3 Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Subject-matter of the dispute - Determination during the pre-litigation procedure - Subsequent extension - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

1 Member States must, in order to secure the full implementation of directives in law and not only in fact, establish a specific legal framework in the area in question.

A Member State which accepts undertakings from water companies for the purpose of ensuring that water complies with the requirements of Directive 80/778 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption, without the conditions governing the acceptance of such undertakings being specified in the national legislation, fails to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and under that directive.

2 Except where such powers are expressly conferred upon it, the Commission may not give guarantees concerning the compatibility of specific practices with Community law, and in no circumstances does it have the power to authorise practices which are contrary to Community law.

3 In an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty, the letter of formal notice from the Commission to the Member State and the reasoned opinion subsequently issued by the Commission delimit the subject-matter of the dispute, which thus cannot thereafter be extended. The opportunity for the State concerned to submit its observations, even if it chooses not to avail itself thereof, constitutes an essential guarantee intended by the Treaty, adherence to which is an essential formal requirement of the procedure for finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations. Consequently, the reasoned opinion and the proceedings brought by the Commission must be based on the same complaints as those set out in the letter of formal notice initiating the pre-litigation procedure.

The Commission cannot, without enlarging the scope of the action and, as a result, infringing the rights of defence of the Member State concerned, present for the first time at the stage of the application a complaint which it did not raise during the pre-litigation procedure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Approximation of laws - Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665 - Procedure enabling the Commission to take preventive action where there has been a clear and manifest infringement of Community provisions in the field of public procurement - Procedure unrelated to the infringement procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Art. 169; Council Directive 89/665)

2 Approximation of laws - Procedures for the award of public supply contracts - Directive 77/62 - Contracting authorities - Bodies corresponding to legal persons governed by public law - Annex I to Directive 77/62 - Public authorities whose public supply contracts are subject to control by the State

(Council Directive 77/62, Art. 1(b) and Annex I, Point VI)

Summary

1 The procedure under Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, which enables the Commission, where it considers that a clear and manifest infringement of Community provisions in the field of public procurement has been committed, to take up the matter with a Member State, constitutes a preventive measure which can neither derogate from nor replace the powers of the Commission under Article 169 of the Treaty, so that the way in which the Commission has used that procedure is irrelevant in assessing the admissibility of an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against a Member State by reason of its infringement of Community provisions in the field of public procurement.

2 A body such as Coillte Teoranta (Irish Forestry Board) is a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 77/62 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts.

Such a body, which has legal personality and does not award public contracts on behalf of the State or a regional or local authority, cannot be regarded as being the State or a regional or local authority, but constitutes a body corresponding to legal persons governed by public law within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 77/62 in conjunction with Point VI (Ireland) of Annex I thereto, where the State may exercise control, at least indirectly, over the award of public supply contracts.