ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Power of Commission to review validity of expenditure — Where reasonable doubt arises — Burden of proof on the Member State

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Beef and veal — Additional premium in order to deal with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis — Definition of execution of payments — (Council Regulation No 1357/96, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 1663/95)

Summary

1. Although the Commission is required to justify its decision to refuse to charge expenditure effected by a Member State to the EAGGF Guarantee section by providing evidence of serious reasonable doubt as to the existence or appropriateness of checks carried out in that Member State, it is nevertheless not obliged to provide details of the inadequacy of those checks or the inaccuracy of the data provided by the Member State. It is the latter which is best placed to collect and verify the data required and to provide proof concerning the genuineness of the checks and the inaccuracy of the Commission ' s claims.

see para. 66

2. Article 7 of Regulation No 1357/96, providing for additional payments to be made in 1996 in relation to the premiums referred to in Regulation No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and amending that regulation, explicitly provides that expenses incurred by Member States under Articles 1 and 4(a) of the Regulation, that is to say, special payments in addition to the premiums due in respect of animals eligible in the 1995 calendar year, are financed by the Community only if they take place ‘by 15 October 1996 at the latest’. That provision therefore assumes that the data necessary for payment of the aid must to a very large extent be already available before that date. In that regard, paragraphs 2(ii) and 6(v) of the Annex to Regulation No 1663/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, define the execution of payments as the issuing of an instruction to a bank or a governmental payments office to pay the amount which is due to the recipient, which requires a direct payment to the latter.

see paras 95-96
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Determination of the recipient of aid — Actual benefit — Whether possible to take account of the wording of allocation clauses in the case of a loan and thus to classify as the beneficiary an entity other than the borrower — Whether necessary to classify in advance the State aid measure in respect of the borrower — Not necessary — (Art. 87(1) EC)

2. State aid — Commission decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market — Difficulties in implementation — Obligation on the Commission and the Member State to cooperate in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty — (Arts 10 EC and 88(2), first subpara., EC)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market — (Arts 87 EC and 253 EC)

Summary

1. In order to determine the recipient of State aid, it is necessary to identify the undertakings which have actually benefited from it. In the case of a loan, the Commission is not precluded from taking the wording of the allocation clauses into account in order to determine that recipient and such an analysis could lead to the conclusion that that recipient is a different entity from the borrower. Given that Article 87(1) EC prohibits aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever, it is not necessary when reaching such a conclusion to first make a finding that the intervention constitutes State aid to the borrower.

see paras 55-57

2. A Member State which encounters unforeseen difficulties in implementing a decision finding that aid is incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery may submit those problems for consideration by the Commission. In such a case the Commission and the Member State concerned must, in accordance with the duty of genuine cooperation between Member States and Community institutions stated in particular in Article 10 EC, work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions, in particular the provisions on aid.

see para. 99

3. Whilst in certain cases the very circumstances in which State aid has been granted may show that it is liable to affect trade between Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition, the Commission must at least set out those circumstances in the statement of the reasons for its decision finding that that aid is incompatible with the common market.

see para. 103
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Administrative practice classifying as medicinal products certain vitamin preparations or preparations containing minerals exceeding more than the simple daily amount – Justification – Protection of public health – Absence – Requirement for detailed assessment on a case-by-case basis

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Directive 65/65, Art. 1)

Summary

A Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC when it automatically classifies as medicinal products vitamin preparations and preparations containing minerals lawfully manufactured or marketed as food supplements in other Member States where they contain either more vitamins other than vitamins A, C, D or K, or more minerals other than those in the chromate group, than the simple daily amount of those nutritive substances, or vitamins A, D or K, irrespective of their content.

Since, in respect of vitamins other than vitamins A, C, D and K and minerals other than those in the chromate group, classification of the preparations concerned, which is based solely on the recommended daily amount, does not fully satisfy the requirement for a classification on the basis of the pharmaceutical properties of each vitamin preparation or preparation containing minerals and, consequently, it does not necessarily follow that all the preparations concerned come within the definition of a ‘function’ medicinal product for the purposes of Directive 65/65 relating to proprietary medicinal products and, in respect of vitamins A, D and K, the practice in question can have the result that preparations containing vitamins A, D or K are classified as medicinal products, although the content of those nutritive substances is too small to be capable of coming within the definition of Directive 65/65, the practice objected to creates a barrier to trade, in so far as vitamin preparations or preparations containing minerals lawfully marketed or produced in other Member States as food supplements cannot be marketed in the Member State in question until they have been subject to the marketing authorisation procedure for medicinal products.

That practice cannot be justified for reasons of protection of the health and life of humans referred to in Article 30 EC, since it does not make a distinction by reference to the different vitamins and minerals added or, in particular, to the level of risk to public health which their addition could entail and, consequently, the automatic nature of that practice does not make it possible to identify and assess a real risk to public health, which requires a detailed assessment on a case-by-case basis of the effects which the addition of the vitamins in question could entail.

(see paras 68, 74, 82, 95-96, 102, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

12 December 2002

((Trade marks – Approximation of laws – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 2 – Signs of which a trade mark may consist – Signs capable of being represented graphically – Olfactory signs))

In Case C-273/00,

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Mr Sieckmann and the Commission at the hearing on 2 October 2001,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 November 2001,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

27 February 2003

((Failure to fulfil obligations – Articles 23 and 25 EC – Charge having an equivalent effect – Export of waste – Basle Convention – Regulation No 259/93 – Contribution to a solidarity fund))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 November 2002,
Case C-14/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Free movement of goods – Directive 73/241/EEC – Cocoa and chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter – Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the Member State of production under the sales name chocolate – Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member State of marketing – Requirement to use the name chocolate substitute)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 6 December 2001 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-355/00





Freskot AE

v

Elliniko Dimosio





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis)

«(Common agricultural policy – Free movement of goods – Freedom to provide services – State aid – Special contribution in favour of an agricultural insurance organisation)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 14 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 22 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Poultrymeat – Compulsory national insurance scheme against natural risks – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 2777/75)

2.. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Parafiscal charge uniformly applied to all national production in a particular sector to finance uniform protection against natural risks – Classification as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty – Excluded – Applicability of Article 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) – Excluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 9, 12 and 95 (now, after amendment, Arts 23, 25 and 90 EC) and Art 16 (repealed by Treaty of Amsterdam))

3.. Freedom to provide services – Services – Meaning – Benefits provided under a compulsory insurance scheme – Excluded – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC) and Art. 60 (now Art. 50 EC))

4.. Competition – Community law – Undertaking – Meaning – Body responsible for providing compulsory insurance – Excluded – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC))

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-144/00





Criminal proceedings

against

Matthias Hoffmann





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

«(VAT – Sixth Directive – Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest – Body – Meaning – Services performed by a natural person – Cultural services by a soloist)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 14 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 3 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for certain cultural services – Other [recognised] cultural bodies – Meaning – Soloists performing individually – Included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(n))

2.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Restrictions under Article 13A – Exclusion

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A)

1.

2.
Case C-346/00





United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Financial years 1996 and 1997 – Arable crops)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 23 January 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 18 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Power of Commission to review validity of expenditure – Where reasonable doubt arises – Burden of proof on the Member State

2.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Procedure for the clearance of accounts – Conciliation procedure – Opinion expressed by the Commission following a bilateral meeting – No binding effect

(Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8)

1.

2.
Case C-457/00





Kingdom of Belgium

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Aid to the Belgian group Verlipack – Hollow container glass sector)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 19 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 3 July 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Determination of the recipient of aid – Actual benefit – Whether possible to take account of the wording of allocation clauses in the case of a loan and thus to classify as the beneficiary an entity other than the borrower – Whether necessary to classify in advance the State aid measure in respect of the borrower – Not necessary

(Art. 87(1) EC)

2.. State aid – Commission decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market – Difficulties in implementation – Obligation on the Commission and the Member State to cooperate in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty

(Arts 10 EC and 88(2), first subpara., EC)

3.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market

(Arts 87 EC and 253 EC)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-129/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Construction contrary to Community law of national legislation by case-law and administrative practice – Conditions for the recovery of sums paid though not due)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 3 June 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 9 December 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Liability – Extent – Constitutionally independent institutions

(Art. 226 EC)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Assessment of the scope of the provisions impugned – Taking into account of the interpretation by the courts of the Member State in question – Criteria

(Art. 226 EC)

3.. Community law – Direct effect – National charges incompatible with Community law – Repayment – Arrangements – Application of national law – Maintenance by a Member State of legislation whose construction by case-law and administrative practice makes exercise of the right to repayment excessively difficult – Failure to fulfil obligations

1.

2.

3.

─

─

─
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder intended for use as animal feed — Introduction by Regulation No 2799/1999 of a condition for grant which excludes skimmed milk in liquid form which has not first been incorporated in a mixture for the production of compound feedingstuffs or processed into skimmed-milk powder — Conditions which do not have the effect of abolishing all aid for that product — Lawfulness — Prohibition of discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Breach — None — (Council Regulation No 1255/1999, Art. 11(1); Commission Regulation No 2799/1999, Arts 8 and 9)

Summary

The condition which the Commission, exercising its wide measure of discretion in the matter, introduced by Regulation No 2799/1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation No 1255/1999 as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such skimmed-milk powder under which skimmed milk in liquid form qualifies for aid only if it has first been incorporated in a mixture for the production of compound feedingstuffs or processed into skimmed-milk powder does not amount to a total abolition of aid for skimmed milk in liquid form intended for use as animal feed, which would be a measure contrary to Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1255/1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products. The market for that kind of skimmed milk continues to benefit from the aid provided for in that article by way of the aid for undertakings producing mixtures for the production of compound feedingstuffs.

Moreover, by adopting that regulation, the Commission did not infringe the prohibition of discrimination or the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. First, there are differences between skimmed milk in liquid form and skimmed-milk powder intended for use in animal feed which objectively justify their being treated differently as regards the right to qualify for aid. Second, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations may be invoked as against Community rules only to the extent that the Community itself has previously created a situation which can give rise to a legitimate expectation, which it has not done in this case.

see paras 38-42, 49-51, 56-57
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Quality of bathing water — Directive 76/160 — Implementation by the Member States — Obligation as to the result to be achieved — Assessment each year — (Council Directive 76/160, Art 4(1) and (13))

Summary

Under Article 4(1) of Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water, Member States are to take all necessary measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values set in accordance with the directive within 10 years following the notification of the directive. Such conformity must be assessed each year and not over a number of years.

see paras 24-25
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 — Scope of the second indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive — Services provided indirectly to an advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn invoices them to that advertiser — Included — Determination of the place where services are supplied to an intermediate customer — Advertiser not liable to tax — Not relevant — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 9(2)(e), second indent)

Summary

The second indent of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, on the place of taxation for advertising services, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to advertising services supplied indirectly to the advertiser and invoiced to an intermediate customer who in turn invoices them to the advertiser. The fact that the advertiser does not produce goods or services in the price of which the cost of the advertising services may be included is not relevant for the purpose of determining the place where the services are supplied to the intermediate customer.

see para. 29, operative part
Keywords



Keywords

1. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification based on the internal legal order — Not permissible — (Art. 141 EA)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion — (Art. 141 EA)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Economic activities for the purpose of the Sixth Directive — Meaning — Purchase of debts with assumption of the risk of the debtors' default — Covered — (Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2, 4 and 17)

2. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Banking transactions referred to in Article 13B(d)(3) — Exclusion of debt collection and factoring — Meaning — Purchase of debts with assumption of the risk of the debtors' default — Covered — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(3))

Summary

1. On a proper construction of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, a business which purchases debts, assuming the risk of the debtors' default, and which, in return, invoices its clients in respect of commission (true factoring) pursues an economic activity for the purposes of Articles 2 and 4 of that directive, so that it has the status of taxable person and thus enjoys the right to deduct tax under Article 17 thereof.

First, the factor indisputably supplies a service to the client, consisting essentially in relieving him of the debt-recovery operations and of the risk of the debts not being paid. Second, in return for that service received by him, the client owes payment to the factor, corresponding to the difference between the face value of the debts which he has assigned to the factor and the amount which the factor pays him for the debts.

see paras 49, 59, operative part 1

2. An economic activity by which a business purchases debts, assuming the risk of the debtors' default, and, in return, invoices its clients in respect of commission (true factoring), constitutes debt collection and factoring within the meaning of the final clause of Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and is therefore excluded from the exemption laid down by that provision.

In accordance with its objective character, the essential aim of factoring is the recovery and collection of debts owed to a third party. Therefore, factoring must be regarded as constituting merely a variant of the more general concept of "debt collection" , whatever the manner in which it is carried out.

see paras 77, 80, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Special scheme for travel agents — Taxable amount — Total amount to be paid by the traveller — Concept — Additional sum paid by an intermediate agency to the package tour operator corresponding to the discount granted by it to the customer — Included — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 26(2))

Summary

Article 26(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that the "total amount to be paid by the traveller" within the meaning of that provision includes the additional amount that a travel agent, acting as intermediary on behalf of a tour operator, must pay to the tour operator on top of the price paid by the traveller and which corresponds in amount to the discount given by the travel agent to the traveller on the price of the holiday stated in the tour operator's brochure.

There is therefore a direct link between that additional amount paid by a third party and the supply of the services provided to the traveller and it is thus included in the consideration for that supply received by the tour operator. It cannot be regarded as the consideration for a service supplied by the tour operator to the travel agent, consisting in providing him with a facility of selling the holiday at a reduced price.

see paras 33-34, operative part