ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax - Exclusions from the right of deduction - Open to Member States to retain exclusions existing when the Sixth Directive entered into force - Exclusion after that date of the right to deduct expenditure relating to certain motor vehicles after that right had been allowed by an administrative practice - Not permitted

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(6), second subpara.)

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax - Exclusions from the right of deduction - Option for Member States to provide for certain exclusions for cyclical economic reasons - Conditions of exercise

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(7), first sentence)

Summary

1. The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, which provides that until the entry into force of common rules determining the expenditure which is not eligible for deduction of value added tax the Member States may retain all the exclusions provided for under their national laws at the date of entry into force of the directive, precludes a Member State from excluding, after the entry into force of the Sixth Directive, expenditure relating to certain motor vehicles from the right to deduct where, at the date of entry into force of that directive, that expenditure gave rise to the right to deduct, albeit by virtue of a consistent practice of the public authorities of that State on the basis of a ministerial circular. In this respect, the term national laws within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) does not refer only to legislative acts in the strict sense, but also to administrative measures and practices of the public authorities of the Member State concerned.

( see paras 49, 51 and operative part 1 )

2. The first sentence of Article 17(7) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, which provides that, subject to consultation of the Advisory Committee on value added tax provided for in Article 29 of that directive, each Member State may, for cyclical economic reasons, totally or partly exclude all or some capital goods or other goods from the system of deductions, must be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to exclude goods from the system of deductions without first consulting that committee, since that procedural obligation is a condition precedent to the adoption of any measure on the basis of Article 17(7). That provision also does not authorise a Member State to adopt measures excluding goods from the system of deductions which contain no indication as to their limitation in time and/or which form part of a package of structural adjustment measures whose aim is to reduce the budget deficit and allow State debt to be repaid.

( see paras 62-63, 69 and operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws - Proprietary medicinal products - Directive 89/105 - Medicinal products for human use - Cost automatically borne or reimbursed by the national health insurance scheme - Conditions

(Council Directive 89/105, Arts. 1 and 6)

2. Approximation of laws - Proprietary medicinal products - Directive 89/105 - Medicinal products for human use - Decision refusing to include a medicinal product on a list of medicinal products covered by the national health insurance scheme - Right of legal action - National legislation providing only for appeals to bodies consisting of independent experts - Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/105, Art. 6(2))

Summary

1. It is clear from Article 6 of Directive 89/105, relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems, that that provision is intended to apply where inclusion of a medicinal product on a list means that its cost will automatically be reimbursed or borne by the scheme. Thus, the fact that in a Member State there is a register and not a positive list and that, in that State, the cost of medicinal products not included on the register may likewise be borne by the scheme if the medicinal product prescribed by the doctor is necessary for the condition affecting the patient in no way detracts from the sole determining factor, namely that inclusion of a medicinal product on the register normally means that its cost will automatically be borne by the scheme.

That interpretation is, moreover, corroborated by the purpose of the directive which, under Article 1 thereof, is to ensure that any national measure to control the prices of medicinal products for human use or to restrict the range of medicinal products covered by national health insurance systems complies with the requirements of the directive.

( see paras 29-30 )

2. The requirement of judicial review reflects a general principle of Community law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

National legislation providing for appeals to independent experts satisfies neither that requirement nor the provisions of Article 6(2) of Directive 89/105 under which persons concerned must be able to avail themselves of remedies ensuring effective legal protection against a decision not to include a medicinal product in the list of products covered by the health insurance system. Such appeals are to supervisory bodies made up of experts belonging to the Member State concerned, and thus to an administrative authority and not to genuine judicial bodies. Moreover, since those bodies can issue only recommendations they have no decision-making power, which rests with the Member State concerned.

( see paras 42-45 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws - Consumer protection in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577 - Scope - Credit agreement secured by a charge on immovable property - Included - Consumer's right of cancellation

(Council Directive 85/577, Arts 1, 3(2)(a) and 5)

2. Approximation of laws - Consumer protection in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577 - Period from the conclusion of the contract within which a consumer who has not been given certain information may exercise his right of cancellation - Not permissible

(Council Directive 83/577, Arts 4 and 5))

Summary

1. Directive 85/577 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises is to be interpreted as applying to a credit agreement secured by a charge on immovable property, with the result that the right of cancellation provided for in Article 5 of that directive is available to a consumer who has entered into a contract of that type in one of the cases specified in Article 1.

Whilst a secured-credit agreement is linked to a right relating to immovable property, in that the loan must be secured by a charge on immovable property, that feature is not sufficient for the agreement to be regarded as concerning a right relating to immovable property for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 85/577. For consumers, whom Directive 85/577 is designed to protect, and for lenders, the subject-matter of such a credit agreement is a grant of funds which is linked to a corresponding obligation of repayment together with interest. The fact that the credit agreement is secured by a charge on immovable property does not render any less necessary the protection which is accorded to the consumer who has entered into that agreement away from the trader's business premises.

Furthermore, neither the preamble to nor the provisions of Directive 87/102 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit contain anything to show that the Community legislature intended, in adopting it, to limit the scope of Directive 85/577 in order to exclude secured-credit agreements from the specific protection provided by that directive.

( see paras 32-34, 39-40 and operative part 1 )

2. Directive 85/577 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises precludes the national legislature from imposing a time-limit of one year from the conclusion of the contract within which the right of cancellation provided for in Article 5 of that directive may be exercised, where the consumer has not received the information specified in Article 4.

( see para. 48 and operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Rules on the transfer of reference quantities following the transfer of a holding - Power of a Member State, in the event of a sale or lease of a holding, to claim back part of the reference quantity and to add it to the national reserve - Conditions - Limits

(Council Regulation No 3950/92, Art. 7(1), first subpara., as amended by Regulation No 1590/93)

2. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Rules on the transfer of reference quantities following the transfer of a holding - National rules entitling the competent authority to adopt measures by means of a decision - Breach of the principle of legal certainty - None - Requirement for adequate publicity to inform persons concerned of the measures - Meaning

(Council Regulation No 3950/92, Art. 7(1), as amended by Regulation No 1560/93)

Summary

$$1. When Member States determine, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Regulation No 1506/93, the detailed rules under which the reference quantity attached to a holding is to be transferred upon the sale or lease of the holding, they may provide, pursuant to that provision, that part of the reference quantity is not to be transferred with the holding to the producer taking it over but is to be added to the national reserve by means of a clawback mechanism. Such a measure must be adopted and applied:

- in a way which does not compromise the objectives of the common agricultural policy and in particular those of the common organisation of the markets in the milk sector;

- on the basis of objective criteria, and

- in accordance with the general principles of Community law such as, in particular, the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, non-discrimination and respect for fundamental rights.

( see para. 37, operative part 1 )

2. The principle of legal certainty does not preclude, as a general principle of Community law, a Member State from choosing, for the purpose of adopting national measures on the transfer of reference quantities upon the transfer of a holding, pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Regulation No 1506/93, a procedure whereby a legislative instrument authorises the competent authority, such as a minister, to adopt those measures by means of a decision. That principle requires that the publicity for such measures be of such a nature as to inform the natural or legal persons concerned by the measures of their rights and obligations under them. It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the facts before it, whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

( see para. 54, operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Measures designed to complete the single market — Derogating national provisions — Monitored by the Commission — Legal basis — Scope ratione temporis of Article 95 EC — Respective obligations of the Commission and the Member States — (EC Treaty, Art. 100a (now, after amendment, Art. 95 EC); Art. 95 EC)

Summary

When a Member State initiates a procedure seeking to obtain authorisation from the Commission to introduce national provisions which derogate from a harmonisation measure on the basis of Article 100a(4) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC), the Commission is fully entitled, following the entry into force of the new provisions of the EC Treaty, to base its decision on Article 95(6) EC.

In the absence of transitional provisions, new rules apply immediately to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rules.

In that context, no new legal situation can be said to have been established before the final step in that procedure has been taken. It is only then that, through approval or rejection by the Commission, a measure likely to affect the earlier legal situation arises. Where the Commission's decision is adopted after the entry into force of Article 95 EC, the application of national provisions notified in accordance with Article 100a(4) of the Treaty does not reflect a legal situation already settled before the entry into force of the new provisions of the EC Treaty.

Moreover, after they come into force, the Member State in question is deemed to know that the decision which the Commission adopts is necessarily based on the new legal basis constituted by Article 95 EC. The Commission is in no way required to inform the Member State of this, and in not doing so it infringes neither the right to a hearing of the Member State nor the principle which imposes on the Member States and the Community institutions a reciprocal duty of cooperation.

see paras 43, 45-48, 61, 63
Case C-306/99





Banque internationale pour l'Afrique occidentale SA (BIAO)

v

Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)

«(Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC – Annual accounts of certain types of companies – Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret Community law in a context where it is not directly applicable – Provisions for risk under a loan guarantee – Taking into account of the individual situation of the debtor and of its State of establishment – Date on which the risk may or must be evaluated and entered on the balance sheet)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 15 November 2001 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 7 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Interpretation of Community law in a context where it is not directly applicable – Admissibility, in this case, of the questions referred

(Art. 234 EC; Council Directive 78/660)

2.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Directive 78/660 – Annual accounts of certain types of companies – Provision to cover the risk arising from a commitment appearing at the foot of the balance sheet – Whether possible to enter such risk on the liabilities side of the balance sheet – Condition – Valuation of asset and liability items – Whether possible to make a globalised assessment – Condition

(Council Directive 78/660, Arts 14, 20(1), and 31(1)(e))

3.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Directive 78/660 – Annual accounts of certain types of companies – Principle of valuing asset and liability items at the balance-sheet date – Repayment after that date of a loan for which credit risk provision had been made – Retrospective revaluation – No obligation – Condition

(Council Directive 78/660, Art. 31(1)(c)(bb))

1.

─

─

─

2.

3.
Case C-199/99 P





Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 26 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 2 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Appeals – Grounds – Procedural irregularity – Decision founded on facts or documents of which one of the parties is unaware – Infringement of the rights of the defence

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2.. Procedure – Duration of the procedure before the Court of First Instance – Reasonable period – Factors to be taken into account

3.. Appeals – Grounds – Erroneous assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Appeal dismissed

(Art. 32d(1) CS; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

4.. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Request for production of a document – Discretion of the Court of First Instance

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 49 and 65(b))

5.. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Anti-competitive effects of the infringement – Criterion not conclusive

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5))

6.. ECSC – Agreements – Concerted practice – Meaning – Criteria of coordination and cooperation – Interpretation – Agreement on the exchange of information

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1); Art. 81(1) EC)

7.. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Administrative procedure – Right of access to the Commission's file – Objectives – Ensuring effective exercise of the rights of the defence – Infringement – Penalised, despite access being given during the judicial proceedings, if there are documents in the file which may be useful for the undertaking's defence

( ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1))

8.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision imposing fines for infringement of the competition rules – Merely desirable that the method of calculating the fine be disclosed

( ECSC Treaty, Arts 15, first para., and 65(5))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - National legislation prohibiting the marketing of articles of precious metals purporting to have a standard of fineness of 999 parts per thousand - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC)

Summary

$$By failing to allow the marketing within its territory of articles of precious metals which purport to have a standard of fineness of 999 parts per thousand and come from other Member States, where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, a Member State fails to comply with its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty, (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).

( see paras 25, 28 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions Harmonisation of laws Turnover taxes Common system of value added tax Supply of services Determination of relevant place for tax purposes Advertising services Definition Services provided indirectly to an advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn invoices them to that advertiser Included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 9(2)(e), second indent)

Summary

$$The second indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, concerning the place where advertising services are supplied for tax purposes, must be interpreted as applying not only to advertising services supplied directly and invoiced by the supplier to a taxable advertiser but also to services supplied indirectly to the advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn invoices them to the advertiser.

( see para. 22 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Community rules - Persons covered - Members of a worker's family - Right to rely on that capacity to take advantage of Community provisions on unemployment benefit - Excluded

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 2(1) and 67 to 71a)

Summary

$$It is clear from Case 40/76 Kermaschek that, even if Case C-308/93 Cabanis-Issarte is taken into account, a member of the family of a worker cannot avail himself, in his capacity as such, of Articles 67 to 71a of Regulation No 1408/71, in particular the special provisions laid down for frontier workers in Article 71(1)(a)(ii) thereof, which designate the Member State of residence as the competent State for the purpose of paying unemployment benefit.

The Community legislature itself laid down, in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, which defines the persons covered by the regulation, two clearly distinct categories of persons, workers on the one hand, and members of their families and their survivors on the other. It is established that that distinction determines the persons to whom many of the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 apply, some of which, such as those in Title III, Chapter 6 (Unemployment Benefits), apply solely to workers.

Furthermore, the Court's interpretation of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 does not, as such, have any impact on the worker's choice as to whether or not to exercise his right to freedom of movement.

Therefore, the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in Kermaschek continues to hold good in relation to Article 2(1), in conjunction with Articles 67 to 71a, of Regulation No 1408/71.

( see paras 21-24 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Economic activity within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive - Involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries - Included, provided transactions are carried out which are subject to VAT by virtue of Article 2 of the directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2 and 4(2))

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax - Holding company carrying out both taxable and exempt transactions - Expenditure arising from the purchase of services in the context of the acquisition of a shareholding in a subsidiary - Right to deduct - Conditions

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(2), (3) and (5))

3. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive - Scope - Receipt of dividends - Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 2)

Summary

1. The involvement of a holding company in the management of companies in which it has acquired a shareholding constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes where it entails carrying out transactions which are subject to value added tax by virtue of Article 2 of that directive, such as the supply by a holding company to its subsidiaries of administrative, financial, commercial and technical services.

( see para. 22, and operative part 1 )

2. Expenditure incurred by a holding company in respect of the various services which it purchases in connection with the acquisition of a shareholding in a subsidiary forms part of its general costs and therefore has, in principle, a direct and immediate link with its business as a whole. Thus, if the holding company carries out both transactions in respect of which value added tax is deductible and transactions in respect of which it is not, it follows from the first subparagraph of Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes that it may deduct only that proportion of the value added tax which is attributable to the former.

( see para. 35, and operative part 2 )

3. Since the receipt of dividends is not the consideration for any economic activity, within the meaning of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, it does not fall within the scope of VAT.

( see para. 41, 45, and operative part 3 )