ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom to provide services – Free movement of capital – Provisions of the Treaty – Examination of a national measure affecting both freedoms

(Arts 49 EC and 56 EC)

2. Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Arts 49 EC and 56 EC)

Summary

1. It is apparent from the wording of Article 49 EC and Article 56 EC, and the position which they occupy in two different chapters of Title III of the Treaty, that, although closely linked, those provisions were designed to regulate different situations and each have their own field of application. Admittedly, it is possible, in certain specific cases in which a national provision concerns both the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, that that provision may simultaneously hinder the exercise of both of those freedoms.

However, it cannot be argued that, in such circumstances, the provisions concerning the freedom to provide services apply as an alternative to those which govern the free movement of capital.

Where a national measure relates both to the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital at the same time, it is necessary to consider to what extent the exercise of those fundamental liberties is affected and whether, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, one of those prevails over the other. The Court will in principle examine the measure in dispute in relation to only one of those two freedoms if it appears, in the circumstances of the case, that one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it.

(see paras 28, 30-31, 34)

2. National rules whereby a Member State makes the granting of credit on a commercial basis, on national territory, by a company established in a non-member country subject to prior authorisation, and which provide that such authorisation must be refused, in particular, if that company does not have its central administration or a branch in that territory, thereby hindering access to the financial market of a Member State for companies established in non-member States, affect primarily the exercise of the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Articles 49 EC et seq.

Given that the restrictive effects of those rules on the free movement of capital are merely an inevitable consequence of the restriction imposed on the provision of services, it is not necessary to consider whether the rules are compatible with Articles 56 EC et seq.

A company established in a non-member State cannot rely on Article 49 EC et seq. Unlike the chapter of the Treaty concerning the free movement of capital, the chapter regulating the freedom to provide services does not contain any provision which enables service providers in non-member countries and established outside the European Union to rely on those provisions; the objective of the latter chapter is to secure the right to provide services for nationals of Member States.

(see paras 25, 49-50, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

2. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 (Council Directive 92/43, Art. 12(1)(b) and (d), and Annex IV, point (a)) (see paras 14-22)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 12(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Protection of vipers Vipera Schweizeri on the island of Milos – Failure to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit disturbance of that species during the period of breeding and the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for the viper Vipera schweizeri on the island of Milos prohibiting deliberate disturbance of that species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing and hibernation and deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places of that species, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Application initiating proceedings – Statement of subject-matter and pleas in law – Formal requirements (Art. 226 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see para. 23)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the pre-litigation procedure (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 24-25)

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Direct insurance other than life assurance and direct life assurance – Directives 92/49 and 2002/83 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/83, Art. 14(5); Council Directive 92/49, Art. 12(6)) (see paras 40-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 12(6) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life assurance directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and Article 14(5) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) – National legislation discriminating against insurers from other Member States.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
Case C-125/04

Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier

v

Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages et Culture SA

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d’arbitrage de la Commission de Litiges Voyages)

(Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC – Arbitration panel)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 27 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC – Meaning – Arbitration panel – Excluded

(Art. 234 EC)

An arbitration tribunal, such as the Collège d’arbitrage de la Commission de Litiges Voyages (Belgium), which resolves disputes between individuals and travel agencies, is not a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the Belgian public authorities are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration.

(see paras 13, 15-16, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 93/83 – Satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission

(Council Directive 93/83, Art. 9(2))

Summary

Article 9(2) of Directive 93/83 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a collecting society is deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights who has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society, that society has the power to exercise that rightholder’s right to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for cable retransmission and, consequently, its mandate is not limited to management of the pecuniary aspects of those rights.

However, that directive does not preclude assignment of the retransmission right, which may be made both on the basis of a contract and by virtue of a legal presumption, and thus does not prevent an author, artist, performer or producer from losing, pursuant to a national provision, his status of ‘rightholder’ of that right within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the directive, with the consequential severance of all legal links existing under that provision between him and the collecting society.

(see paras 24-25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supply of services

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 9(2)(c), first indent)

Summary

The first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes lays down that the place of the supply of services relating to cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational and entertainment or similar activities, including those of the organisers of such activities, and ancillary services, is the place where those services are physically carried out. That provision must be interpreted as meaning that an inclusive service provided by an organiser to exhibitors at a fair or in an exhibition hall falls within the category of services referred to therein.

The features common to the various categories of services referred to in the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive originate in the complex nature of the services concerned, which are various services, and in the fact that those services are generally provided for a number of different recipients, that is to say, all the people taking part, in a variety of capacities, in cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational or entertainment activities. Those various categories of services also have the common feature that they are usually provided for specific events, and the place where those complex services are physically carried out is easy to identify, as a rule, since such events take place at specific locations. A show or a fair, whatever its theme, seeks to provide to a number of different recipients, as a rule in a single place and on a single occasion, a variety of complex services, with the purpose, in particular, of presenting information, goods or events in such a way as to promote them to the visitors.

In those circumstances, it must be possible to regard a show or a fair as being covered by the similar activities referred to in the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive.

(see paras 23-25, 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Option for Member States to maintain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 28(2)(a))

Summary

The fact that specific goods are counted as a single supply, including both a principal item which is by virtue of a Member State’s legislation subject to an exemption with refund of the tax paid within the meaning of Article 28(2)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 92/77 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388 (approximation of value added tax rates), and items which that legislation excludes from the scope of that exemption, does not prevent the Member State concerned from levying value added tax at the standard rate on the supply of those excluded items.

While it follows, admittedly, from the case-law on the taxation of single supplies that such a supply is, as a rule, subject to a single rate of value added tax, the case‑law does not preclude some elements of that supply from being taxed separately where only such taxation complies with the conditions imposed by Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive on the application of exemptions with refund of the tax paid.

(see paras 24, 27, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

Summary

Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that provision may be relied on in the context of an action brought in a Member State against a defendant domiciled in that State and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State even when that action is regarded under a national provision as inadmissible from the time it is brought in relation to the first defendant, such as a rule precluding creditors from bringing individual actions against a debtor who has been declared bankrupt. First, that provision does not include any express reference to the application of domestic rules or any requirement that an action brought against a number of defendants should be admissible, by the time it is brought, in relation to each of those defendants under national law. Second, since it is not one of the provisions which provide expressly for the application of domestic rules and thus serve as a legal basis therefor, that provision cannot be interpreted in such a way as to make its application dependent on the effects of domestic rules. However, that same provision cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow a plaintiff to make a claim against a number of defendants for the sole purpose of removing one of them from the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that defendant is domiciled.

(see paras 27, 30-33, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk

(Council Regulation No 857/84, Art. 7(1), as amended by Regulation No 590/85; Commission Regulation No 1546/88, Art. 7, first subpara., points 2, 3 and 4)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk

(Council Regulation No 857/84, Art. 7(1), as amended by Regulation No 590/85; Commission Regulation No 1546/88, Art. 7, first subpara., point 4)

Summary

1. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the additional levy on milk, as amended by Regulation No 590/85, and points 2, 3 and 4 of the first subparagraph of Article 7 of Regulation No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of that additional levy must be interpreted as meaning that on the return of a leased part of a holding the corresponding reference quantity for that part cannot pass to the landlord if he is not a milk producer, does not intend to carry out such an activity and does not intend to grant a lease for the undertaking concerned to a milk producer.

(see para. 24, operative part 1)

2. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the additional levy on milk, as amended by Regulation No 590/85, and point 4 of the first subparagraph of Article 7 of Regulation No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of that additional levy preclude the reference quantity from being retained by the tenant on the ending of a rural lease, where the lease has been voluntarily brought to an end.

(see para. 28, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax

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

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax

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

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(1)(2) and (7))

Summary

1. The first sentence of Article 17(7) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes requires the Member States, in order to respect the procedural obligation of consultation laid down by Article 29 of that directive, to inform the Advisory Committee on value added tax established by that article that they intend to adopt a national measure derogating from the general system of deducting value added tax and to provide that committee with sufficient information to enable it to examine the measure in full knowledge of the facts.

The obligation to consult the Advisory Committee would be deprived of its meaning if the Member States merely notified it of the national derogating measure which they envisaged adopting without including any explanation as to the nature and scope of the measure. The Advisory Committee must be in a position to deliberate properly on the measure submitted to it.

(see paras 30, 32, operative part 1)

2. The first sentence of Article 17(7) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to exclude goods from the system of deducting value added tax without first consulting the Advisory Committee on value added tax established by Article 29 of that directive. Nor does that provision authorise a Member State to adopt measures excluding goods from the system of deducting that tax which contain no indication as to their limitation in time and/or which form part of a body of structural adjustment measures whose aim is to reduce the budget deficit and allow State debt to be repaid. It authorises a Member State to adopt measures of a temporary nature which are intended to deal with the consequences of the situation of its economy at a given time.

(see paras 53-55, operative part 2)

3. In so far as an exception from the system of deductions has not been established in accordance with Article 17(7) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, the national tax authorities may not rely as against a taxable person on a provision derogating from the principle of the right to deduct value added tax set out in Article 17(1) of that directive. A taxable person which has been subject to that derogating provision must be able to recalculate its value added tax debt in accordance with Article 17(2) of the directive, in so far as the goods and services have been used for the purposes of taxable transactions.

(see paras 69, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage caused by an unlawful act

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

Summary

For the Community to become non-contractually liable under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, the condition relating to damage requires that the damage for which compensation is sought be actual and certain.

In that regard, the fact that the Community institution has a wide discretion in the matter concerned cannot, as such, lead automatically to the damage alleged, which is the result of unlawful conduct by that institution, being regarded as uncertain. Therefore, it is solely having regard to the particular circumstances surrounding the adoption of the measure with which the damage originated that an assessment must be made as to whether the margin of discretion enjoyed by the Community institution is such as to preclude a finding that that damage is certain in character.

It follows that, where the existence of that margin of discretion authorises the Community judicature to find that there is uncertainty with regard to the exact extent of the damage claimed, that does not permit the conclusion that the very existence of the damage is uncertain.

(see paras 27, 30, 33-34, 36)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Visas, asylum, immigration – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Conditions of movement of nationals of a third country not subject to a visa requirement

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Art. 20(1))

Summary

Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘first entry’ in that provision refers, besides the very first entry into the territory of the States which contracted that agreement, to the first entry into that territory taking place after the expiry of a period of six months from that very first entry and also to any other first entry taking place after the expiry of any new period of six months following an earlier date of first entry. That provision thus allows nationals of a third country not subject to a visa requirement to stay in the Schengen Area for a maximum period of three months during successive periods of six months, provided that each of those periods commences with such a first entry.

Moreover, the term ‘first entry’, as thus interpreted, does not in any way deprive the competent national authorities of the power to penalise, in compliance with Community law, a national of a third country whose stay in the Schengen Area has exceeded the maximum period of three months during an earlier period of six months, even if, on the date of the check to which he was subject, his stay in that area has not exceeded three months since the most recent date of first entry.

(see paras 29, 31, 43 and operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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