ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Communities’ own resources

–

Establishment and making available by Member States (Council Regulations Nos 1552/89, Art. 11, 1854/89, Art. 5, 1150/2000, Art. 1,1 and 2913/92, Art. 220(1)) (see paras 28, 32, 35, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 1) – Late payment of part of the European Communities’ own resources in the case of late recovery of customs duty – Refusal to pay default interest due as a consequence of the delay in making the entry in the Commission’s account

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that:

(a) by failing to comply with the time-limits for late entry in the accounts of duties arising from a customs debt laid down in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt, and, from 1 January 1994, with Article 220(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, leading to a delay in making available of own resources, and

(b) by failing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the interest under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, and, from 31 May 2000 of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under all of those provisions;

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

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
Case C-314/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 2000/52/EC – Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings)

Summary of the Judgment

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification – Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)
Case C-28/03

Epikouriko Kefalaio

v

Ipourgos Anaptixis

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias)

(Insurance – Articles 15 and 16 of First Directive 73/239/EEC – Articles 17 and 18 of First Directive 79/267/EEC – Proceedings for the liquidation of an insurance undertaking following the withdrawal of authorisation – Respective priority of salary claims and insurance claims)

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Direct insurance – Directives 73/239 and 79/267 – Obligation on insurance undertakings to establish sufficient technical provisions and an adequate solvency margin for their entire business – National legislation granting salary claims a priority in respect of assets representing technical provisions which takes precedence over the priority of insurance claims – Compatibility with Community rules

(Council Directives 73/239, Arts 15 and 16, and 79/267, Arts 17 and 18)

Articles 15 and 16 of First Directive 73/239 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance and Articles 17 and 18 of First Directive 79/267 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct life assurance, which oblige insurance undertakings to establish sufficient technical provisions and an adequate solvency margin for their entire insurance business, do not preclude national legislation under which, if an insurance company is the subject of insolvency proceedings, is put into liquidation or is otherwise in a state of insolvency, the assets representing the technical provisions may be allocated to payment of salary claims before payment of insurance claims, where that legislation accords to insurance claims a priority whose scope encompasses in any event, in addition to the assets representing the technical provisions, other assets of the undertaking and may, by virtue of a ministerial decision, have been extended to all the available assets of the undertaking.

While the coordination of national provisions relating to the financial guarantees required of insurance undertakings that is achieved, in particular, by the Community provisions referred to above is intended to ensure adequate protection for policyholders and third-party beneficiaries in every Member State of the Community, the Community provisions in question none the less cannot be interpreted as signifying that the Community legislature meant that, in the event of liquidation of an insurance undertaking, the assets representing technical provisions must, in all circumstances, be allocated by way of absolute priority to the payment of insurance claims.

(see paras 24-26, 28, operative part)
Case C-242/03

Ministre des Finances

v

Jean-Claude Weidert

and

Élisabeth Paulus

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg))

(Free movement of capital – Income tax – Special relief for expenditure incurred on the acquisition of shares – Benefit of the advantage restricted to the acquisition of shares in companies established in the Member State concerned)

Summary of the Judgment

Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Income tax relief to natural persons for the acquisition of shares – Restriction to shares in companies established in the Member State concerned – Not permissible – Justification – None

(Arts 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) EC)

Article 56(1) EC and Article 58(1)(a) EC preclude a legal provision of a Member State which denies the availability of income tax relief to natural persons for the acquisition of shares representing cash contributions in capital companies established in other Member States.

Such legislation is a restriction on the movement of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC, in that it has the effect of discouraging nationals of the Member State concerned from investing their capital in companies which have their seat in another Member State; it also has a restrictive effect in relation to companies established in other Member States, in that it constitutes an obstacle to the raising of capital in the Member State concerned.

In the absence of a direct link between the tax advantage in question and an offsetting fiscal levy, such as the taxation of dividends subsequently paid by the companies in which the investment was made, the need to guarantee the cohesion of the tax system cannot be relied on to justify such a restriction.

(see paras 13-15, 20-23, 28, operative part)
Case C-177/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 89/618/Euratom – Informing the general public in the event of a radiological emergency – Non-transposition)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion – Limits

(Art. 141 EA)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the proceedings – Specification in the pre-litigation procedure – Fundamental change in the national provisions between the expiry of the period laid down for compliance with the reasoned opinion and the lodging of the application – New reasoned opinion

(Art. 141 EA)

1. Under the system established by Article 141 EA, the Commission enjoys a discretion as to whether to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations and it is not for the Court to consider whether the exercise of that discretion is appropriate. By contrast, it is incumbent on the Court to consider, if appropriate, whether an action under that article is inadmissible as having been brought out of time or as constituting a misuse of procedure.

(see paras 16-17)

2. The proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure provided for in Article 141 EA constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned but also to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter.

Thus, where the relevant national provisions have fundamentally changed between the expiry of the period laid down for compliance with the reasoned opinion and the lodging of the application, that change in circumstances may render the judgment to be given by the Court otiose. In such situations, it may be preferable for the Commission not to bring an action but to issue a new reasoned opinion precisely identifying the complaints which it intends pursuing, having regard to the changed circumstances.

(see paras 20-21)
Case C-31/03

Pharmacia Italia SpA, formerly Pharmacia & Upjohn SpA

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 – Medicinal products – Supplementary protection certificate – Transitional arrangements – Successive authorisations as a veterinary medicinal product and a medicinal product for human use)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Delivery pursuant to the transitional provision of Article 19 of Regulation No 1768/92 – Conditions – Obtaining of a first marketing authorisation before the date specified in that article for a veterinary medicinal product – Grant precluded of a supplementary certificate for that product on the basis of a medicinal product for human use

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 19(1))

Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1768/92, concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, which provides that that certificate may be delivered provided that, inter alia, the product has obtained in a Member State, after a particular date, a first marketing authorisation as a medicinal product, precludes the grant of the said certificate in another Member State on the basis of a medicinal product for human use authorised in that Member State, when that product has obtained in the first Member State, before the date specified in Article 19(1), a marketing authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product.

(see para. 23, operative part)
Case C-412/03

Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB

v

Riksskatteverket

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2) – Provision of meals in a company canteen for a price lower than the cost price – Taxable amount)

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 23 November 2004

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 20 January 2005

Summary of the judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of legislation – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable transactions – Supplies of goods and services effected for consideration – Meaning – Transactions where the consideration is lower than the cost price of the goods or services – Included – National rule whereby such transactions are regarded as an application of goods or services for private use – Not permitted

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2, 5(6) and 6(2))

Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, Articles 5(6) and 6(2)(b) of which treat, for the purposes of the imposition of value added tax, certain transactions for which no consideration is actually received by the taxable person as supplies of goods and provisions of services effected for consideration, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule whereby transactions in respect of which an actual consideration is paid are regarded as an application of goods or services for private use within the meaning of the latter provisions, even where that consideration is less than the cost price of the goods or services supplied.

The fact that the price paid for an economic transaction is higher or lower than the cost price is irrelevant to the question whether a transaction is to be regarded as a ‘transaction effected for consideration’ within the meaning of Article 2. The latter concept requires only that there be a direct link between the supply of goods or the provision of services and the consideration actually received by the taxable person. Accordingly, where the transaction in question is effected for consideration, there is no reason to apply Articles 5(6) and 6(2)(b), since those provisions relate only to transactions effected free of charge.

(see paras 22-24, 30, operative part)
Case C-356/03

Elisabeth Mayer

v

Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

(Equal treatment for men and women – Maternity leave – Acquisition of pension rights)

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 9 September 2004

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

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy – Men and women – Equal treatment in occupational social security schemes – Directive 86/378 – Supplementary occupational pension scheme – Provisions having the effect of suspending the acquisition of pension rights during maternity leave – Not permissible

(Council Directive 86/378, as amended by Directive 96/97, Art. 6(1)(g))

Article 6(1)(g) of Directive 86/378 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes, as amended by Directive 96/97, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national rules under a woman acquires no rights to an insurance annuity which is part of a supplementary occupational pension scheme during statutory maternity leave paid in part by her employer because the acquisition of those rights is conditional upon the woman’s receiving taxable pay during the maternity leave.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 February 2006 – Commission v Spain

(Case C-546/03)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Communities’ own resources – Community Customs Code – Procedures for collecting import or export duties – Late payment of own resources relating to those duties and failure to pay default interest

Communities’ own resources – Establishment and making available by Member States (Council Regulations Nos 1552/89, Art. 11, 1854/89, Art. 5, 1150/2000, Art. 1,1 and 2913/92, Art. 220(1)) (see paras 28, 32, 35, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 1) – Late payment of part of the European Communities’ own resources in the case of late recovery of customs duty – Refusal to pay default interest due as a consequence of the delay in making the entry in the Commission’s account

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that:

(a) by failing to comply with the time-limits for late entry in the accounts of duties arising from a customs debt laid down in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt, and, from 1 January 1994, with Article 220(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, leading to a delay in making available of own resources, and

(b) by failing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the interest under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, and, from 31 May 2000 of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under all of those provisions;

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

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Pigmeat — Beef and veal — Exceptional support measures for the market affected by a disease — Aid for the delivery of calves destined for rendering — Upper limit of aid expressed in terms of average kilograms per batch — Definition of ‘batch’ — Independent interpretation

(Commission Regulation No 1046/2001, Art. 4(3))

Summary

Regulation No 1046/2001 adopting exceptional support measures for the markets in pigmeat and veal in the Netherlands makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining the meaning and scope of the term ‘batch’ in Article 4(3), which fixes the ceiling for aid for producers for the delivery of calves coming from the areas affected by the disease, expressed in terms of average kilograms per batch. It is, therefore, an independent concept of Community law, the interpretation of which must take into account the context of that article and the purpose of the regulation in question.

Therefore, the term ‘batch’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) refers to all calves which are delivered for rendering by a producer on one day in connection with one sales transaction.

(see paras 22-23, 37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid — Aid projects — Notification to the Commission — Scope of the obligation — Aid to shipbuilding falling outside the scope of Directive 90/684 — Included — Lack of notification — Obligations of national courts

(EC Treaty, Arts 93(3) and 94 (now Arts 88(3) EC and 89 EC); Council Directive 90/684)

Summary

The Commission must be given prior notification, pursuant to Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC), of a scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion, set up in a Member State, which does not fall within the scope of Directive 90/684 on aid to shipbuilding, if it is established that the scheme is capable of itself, having regard in particular to its effect on trade between Member States, of giving rise to the grant of State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) and in the absence of a regulation adopted on the basis of Article 94 of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) with a view to its exemption therefrom.

It is for the national court, in cases of infringement of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, to draw the necessary consequences, in accordance with its national law, with regard to both the validity of the acts giving effect to the aid and the recovery of financial support granted in disregard of that provision.

(see paras 28, 39, 50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character of the sign — Mark consisting of several components — Open to the competent authority to examine each of the components of which the mark is composed — Need to take into account the overall perception of their combination by the relevant public

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)( b))

2. Appeals — Pleas in law— Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance — Failure to identify the error of law relied on — Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

1. In order to assess whether or not a Community trade mark has any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the overall impression given by it must be considered. That does not mean, however, that the competent authority, responsible for ascertaining whether the trade mark for which registration is sought is capable of being perceived by the public as an indication of origin, may not first examine each of the individual features of the get-up of that mark in turn. It may be useful, in the course of the competent authority’s overall assessment, to examine each of the components of which the trade mark concerned is composed.

In this context, the overall perception of the mark by the average consumer should nevertheless be relied upon, and not the presumption that features individually devoid of distinctive character cannot, on being combined, display distinctive character, thereby refusing to give any relevance to aspects such as the existence of an element of imaginativeness, which must be taken into account in such an analysis.

(see paras 22-23, 26-27)

2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

Where an appeal merely reproduces the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment under appeal, it fails to satisfy that requirement. In reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

(see paras 42, 49-50)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco – Directives 92/79 and 95/59 – Application of the rate of tax for tobacco for self-rolled cigarettes to rolls of tobacco intended to be slipped into cigarette tubes – Not permissible

(Council Directives 92/79, Art. 2, first para., and 95/59, Art. 4(1)( b))

Summary

A Member State which applies the rate of tax for fine-cut tobacco for self-rolled cigarettes to rolls of tobacco intended to be slipped into cigarette tubes by simple non-industrial handling has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 95/59 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, and the first paragraph of Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes.

(see paras 32-33, operative part)