ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The option, stemming from Article 6(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, of allocating goods to the assets used as a taxable person or to those used as a non-taxable person cannot be transposed to a situation in which a taxable person carries out both economic activities which are subject to VAT and non-economic activities which fall outside the scope of that scheme.

Article 5(7)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a municipality takes first occupation of a building which it has had built on its own land and of which it intends to use 94% of the area for its activities as a public authority and 6% of that area for its activities as a taxable person, including 1% for exempt activities in respect of which no right to deduct VAT exists.

The wording of that provision covers not only goods entirely produced, constructed, extracted or processed by the business concerned itself, but also goods produced, constructed, extracted or processed by a third party with materials provided by that business.

Furthermore, treating as a supply made for consideration the application of such goods by a taxable person for the purposes of his business is possible only where the purchase of those goods from another taxable person would not confer upon the first taxable person the right to make a complete deduction of VAT.

Finally, the entire amount of the input VAT paid by the municipality in respect of the acquisition of the goods for the purposes of the subsequent application must give rise to a right to deduct that VAT, in accordance with Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive.

That subsequent application is itself subject to VAT and the amount of the VAT for which the municipality is liable as a result of that application must be calculated, in accordance with Article 11A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive, on the basis of the overall value of each of those elements, the land and the building, it being understood that VAT must not have been previously charged on those elements.

However, the subsequent use of the building for the activities of the municipality may give rise to a right to deduct the tax paid in respect of the application provided for by that provision only in the proportion corresponding to its use for the purposes of the taxable transactions, pursuant to Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive.

(see paras 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, operative part)
Article 126(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations No 1290/2005, No 247/2006, No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ includes the marketing year which the Member States must choose before 30 April 2006 as the representative period for the grant of the separate sugar payment, under Article 143ba(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations No 2019/93, No 1452/2001, No 1453/2001, No 1454/2001, No 1868/94, No 1251/1999, No 1254/1999, No 1673/2000, No 2358/71 and No 2529/2001, as amended by Regulations No 319/2006, No 2011/2006 and No 2012/2006.

Having regard to the purpose of the single sugar payment, which is to compensate for reductions in income, brought about by the reform of the sugar common market organisation, Articles 143ba of Regulation No 1782/2003 and 126 of Regulation No 73/2009 must be regarded as having the objective of supporting farmers who benefited from the sugar market support measures before the reform in 2006. In that regard, Article 143ba(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 expressly refers to the marketing years 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 as the periods amongst which the Member States could choose to determine the reference period for the grant of the separate sugar payment. Furthermore, that representative period had to be definitively determined before 30 April 2006 by the Member State concerned. In that regard, it is clear that those marketing years are representative of a period during which farmers benefited from the Community institutional sugar support price. In those circumstances, Article 126(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 cannot be interpreted as referring, for the grant of the separate sugar payment, to a representative period which is not one of the marketing years listed in Article 143ba(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, and which had to be definitively determined before 30 April 2006 by the Member State concerned pursuant to that provision.

(see paras 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, operative part)
When it is ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the provisions of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in proceedings involving an individual and a public administrative body, the Court examines the question solely in the light of that directive.

Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which sets the maximum age for recruitment of local police officers at 30 years.

The possession of particular physical capacities may admittedly be regarded as a ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 for the purposes of employment as a local police officer. Moreover, the concern to ensure the operational capacity and proper functioning of the police service constitutes a legitimate objective within the meaning of that provision.

However, such national legislation imposes a disproportionate requirement since it has not been demonstrated that the particular physical capacities required for the exercise of the function of local police officer are necessarily linked to a particular age group and are not found in persons over a certain age, or that the objective of safeguarding the operational capacity and proper functioning of the local police service makes it necessary to maintain a particular age structure, which in turn requires the recruitment exclusively of officials under 30 years of age.

Nor is such legislation appropriate or necessary for the objective of ensuring training of the officers concerned for the purposes of point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78. Lastly, such legislation cannot be considered necessary in order to ensure that those officers have a reasonable period of employment before retirement for the purposes of that provision.

(see paras 41, 44, 48, 56, 57, 70, 72, 74, operative part)
The Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1832/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that modules, each consisting of the interconnection of a light emitting diode, a photo-diode and a number of other semiconductor devices, and which may be used as infrared transmitters/receivers where their electricity supply derives from the devices in which they are incorporated, come under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature.

In that regard, heading 8543 applies to an electrical machine or apparatus only if it has an individual function, and if it cannot be classified under other headings of Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature.

Thus, since modules, such as those at issue, used to transmit and receive short-range data in interaction with other electronic tools using infrared light, have an individual function, and those modules, which are each composed of the interconnection of a light emitting diodes, a photo-diode and a number of other semiconductor devices, and which are intended to be inserted in other devices from which their electricity supply is derived, are not included in any heading of Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature other than heading 8543, those modules come under the latter heading.

(see paras 27, 34, 35, operative part 1)
Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded previously because of the reorganisation of the system by way of an alignment of licence expiry dates.

Even if that legislation constitutes an obstacle to the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU, the reorganisation of the licensing system may contribute to a coherent pursuit of the legitimate objectives of reducing gambling opportunities or combating criminality linked to betting and gambling and may also satisfy the proportionality requirements.

If, in future, the national authorities wanted to reduce the number of licences granted or exercise stricter control over activities in the field of betting and gambling, such measures would be facilitated if all the licences were awarded for the same duration and expired at the same time.

(see paras 46, 53, 55, operative part)
Directive 2009/73 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55, the period allowed for whose transposition expired on 3 March 2011 and, in particular, the new provisions introduced in Article 41(17) thereof, must be interpreted as not applying to an action against a decision of a regulatory authority adopted before the expiry of that period allowed for transposition and which was still pending on that date.

Article 5 of Regulation No 1775/2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks, read in conjunction with the Annex to that regulation, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation concerning the exercise of rights of action before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of acts of a regulatory authority, which does not make it possible to confer on a network user locus standi for the purpose of bringing an action against a decision of that authority relating to the gas network code.

In the light of the wording of Article 2(1) and (11) of Regulation No 1775/2005, it is irrelevant that such an operator has in fact concluded a contract with the network manager in order to benefit from the status of network user, in so far as that status covers all potential customers of the network manager.

The principles set out in Article 5 of that regulation, read in conjunction with the Annex thereto, must be interpreted as constituting protective measures adopted in the interests of users wishing to gain access to the network and therefore capable of conferring rights on them. Therefore, such an operator must be regarded as potentially having its rights infringed by a decision of the regulatory authority which amends the rules of the network code relating to capacity allocation and congestion management.

(see paras 45, 46, 48, 51, operative part 2)
Article 19(1) of Third Directive 78/855 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109, must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘merger by acquisition’ in Article 3(1) of the directive results in the transfer to the acquiring company of the obligation to pay a fine imposed by final decision adopted after the merger by acquisition for infringements of employment law committed by the acquired company prior to that merger.

The liability for an administrative offence would be extinguished if it were not transferred to the acquiring company as part of the liabilities of the company being acquired. Extinguishing such a liability would run contrary to the very notion of merger by acquisition, as defined in Article 3(1) of Directive 78/855, to the extent that, in accordance with that provision, such an acquisition consists in the transfer to the acquiring company of all the acquired company’s assets and liabilities as a result of the latter being wound up without going into liquidation

Furthermore, the category of third parties, whose interests the directive is intended to protect, includes those entities which though not yet creditors or debenture holders at the date of the acquisition may become such post-acquisition as a result of situations predating the acquisition. This is the case, for instance, for infringements of employment law provisions which are found to have been committed in a decision adopted after the merger by acquisition had taken place. If liability for the payment of a fine for administrative offences committed by the company being acquired were not transferred to the acquiring company, the interest of the Member State the competent authorities of which have imposed the fine would not be protected. In that context, if such liability were not transferred, a company could use a merger by acquisition as a means of escaping the legal consequences of offences it has committed to the detriment of the Member State concerned or other potential interested parties.

(see paras 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, operative part)
The criteria for assessing the distinctive character, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, of three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself are no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark. However, for the purpose of applying those criteria, the perception of the average consumer is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of the appearance of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent of the appearance of the products it designates. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctive character in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark.

In those circumstances, the more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of any distinctive character. Only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of that provision.

It follows that, where a three-dimensional mark is constituted by the shape of the product for which registration is sought, the mere fact that that shape is a ‘variant’ of a common shape of that type of product is not sufficient to establish that the mark is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. It must always be determined whether such a mark permits the average consumer of that product, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical examination and without paying particular attention.

(see paras 90-92)
As regards the temporal application of Regulation No 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Regulations No 1191/69 and No 1107/70, it is apparent from the transitional provisions set out in Article 8(3) of that regulation that public service contracts in existence when that regulation entered into force may continue until they expire, subject to the maximum periods laid down by that provision and subject to those contracts having been awarded in accordance with Community and national law.

Under Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1191/69 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, compensation paid to a transport undertaking in respect of the financial burdens arising from its public service obligation was exempt from the notification obligation provided for in Article 108(3) TFEU if that compensation satisfied the conditions laid down in that regulation because of its compatibility with the internal market.

It follows that aid paid to a public transport undertaking on a date at which Regulation No 1191/69 was still in force and which complied with the conditions laid down in that regulation fell within the scope of a situation definitively existing before the entry into force of Regulation No 1370/2007.

Consequently, where aid is paid in connection with a public service contract which was concluded before the entry into force of Regulation No 1370/2007 and which expires after the entry into force of that regulation, while the Commission must examine in the light of the conditions laid down in Regulation No 1191/69 the aid paid before the entry into force of Regulation No 1370/2007, in order to ascertain whether that aid is exempt from the notification obligation provided for in Article 108(3) TFEU, it must, by contrast, examine in the light of Regulation No 1370/2007 and subject to the transitional rules mentioned in Article 8(3) of that regulation both the legality and the compatibility with the internal market of the aid paid from the date on which that regulation entered into force.

(see paras 51-55)
Case C‑589/13

Proceedings against F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Interim taxation of capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings by a national foundation — Refusal of right to deduct from the taxable amount gifts to non-resident beneficiaries exempt from tax in the Member State of the foundation under a double taxation convention’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 17 September 2015

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Income tax — Capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings by a resident private foundation — Deductibility of gifts to resident beneficiaries — Exclusion of gifts to non-resident beneficiaries exempt from the tax as a result of a double taxation convention — Difference of treatment — Comparable situations — Not permissible — No justification

(Art. 56 EC)

Article 56 EC precludes tax legislation of a Member State under which, as regards interim tax which is charged on capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings of a resident private foundation, that foundation has the right to deduct from its taxable amount only gifts made in the course of a given assessment period that have been the subject of a tax levied within that period on the beneficiaries of those gifts in the Member State in which the foundation is taxed, whereas such a deduction is excluded by that national tax legislation where the beneficiaries reside in another Member State and are exempt, on the basis of a double taxation convention, from a tax that is otherwise charged on gifts in the Member State in which the foundation is taxed.

First, such a system involves a difference of treatment in objectively comparable situations.

Second, such a restriction of the free movement of capital can be justified neither by the preservation of a balanced allocation of powers of taxation between Member States nor the need to safeguard the coherency of the national tax regime. With regard to the first objective, having abandoned its powers of taxation on gifts to persons residing in other Member States in double taxation conventions, a Member State cannot rely on a balanced allocation of powers of taxation in order to levy a specific tax on foundations that make gifts to such persons on the basis that those persons are not subject to its tax jurisdiction. With regard to the second objective, the coherency of the national tax regime cannot be relied on where there is no direct link between the tax advantage concerned and the offsetting of that advantage by a particular tax. There is no such direct link where, in particular, different taxes or the tax treatment of different taxpayers are concerned. The deduction of the amount corresponding to the gifts made by the private foundation subject to the interim tax and the taxation of the beneficiaries for those gifts necessarily concern different taxpayers.

(see paras 42, 63, 71, 80, 81, 83, 85, operative part)
Case C‑517/13

Proximus SA

v

Province de Namur

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 97/13/EC — Articles 4 and 11 — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 6 — Conditions which may be attached to the general authorisation and to the rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers, and specific obligations — Article 13 — Fee for the rights to install facilities — Scope — Provincial legislation — Charge on mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 December 2015

Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Electronic communications networks and services — Authorisation — Directive 2002/20 — Fee for the rights of use and rights to install facilities — Concept — Charge on the operation of mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/20, Arts 6 and 13)

Articles 6 and 13 of Directive 2002/20 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a charge being imposed on any natural or legal persons operating mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units.

Although such a charge is imposed on all natural or legal persons operating mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units, which constitute physical infrastructure enabling provision of electronic communications networks and services, it does not appear that that charge has the characteristics of a fee which is imposed on undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services in return for the right to install facilities.

(see paras 35, 36, operative part)