ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
10

Article 18 of Regulation No 1013/2006, entitled ‘Waste to be accompanied by certain information’, provides: ‘1. Waste as referred to in Article 3(2) and (4) that is intended to be shipped shall be subject to the following procedural requirements: (a) In order to assist the tracking of shipments of such waste, the person under the jurisdiction of the country of dispatch who arranges the shipment shall ensure that the waste is accompanied by the document contained in Annex VII. (b) The document contained in Annex VII shall be signed by the person who arranges the shipment before the shipment takes place and shall be signed by the recovery facility or the laboratory and the consignee when the waste in question is received. 2. The contract referred to in Annex VII between the person who arranges the shipment and the consignee for recovery of the waste shall be effective when the shipment starts and shall include an obligation, where the shipment of waste or its recovery cannot be completed as intended or where it has been effected as an illegal shipment, on the person who arranges the shipment or, where that person is not in a position to complete the shipment of waste or its recovery (for example, is insolvent), on the consignee, to: (a) take the waste back or ensure its recovery in an alternative way; and (b) provide, if necessary, for its storage in the meantime. The person who arranges the shipment or the consignee shall provide a copy of the contract upon request by the competent authority concerned. 3. For inspection, enforcement, planning and statistical purposes, Member States may in accordance with national legislation require information as referred to in paragraph 1 on shipments covered by this Article. 4. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be treated as confidential where this is required by Community and national legislation.’
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2012 — Brouwer

(Case C-355/11)

Directive 91/629/EEC — Minimum standards for the protection of calves — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy — National legislation transposing Directive 91/629/EEC and declaring the management requirements provided for by that directive to be applicable to, inter alia, calves which are kept confined in the context of a dairy farming operation

1. European Union law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Consideration of different language versions — Directive 91/629 — Definition of ‘rearing’ and ‘fattening’ (Council Directive 91/629, Arts 1 and 4) (see paras 36-39)

2. European Union law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as a reference point — Directive 91/629 (Council Directive 91/629, Art. 1) (see paras 40-42)

3. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Minimum standards for the protection of calves — Directive 91/629 — Scope — Calves kept confined in the context of a dairy farming operation for agricultural purposes — Included (Council Directive 91/629, Arts 1 and 4) (see paras 44-46, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 28) and of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — National legislation transposing the Directive by stating that the management requirements apply not only to calves confined for rearing and fattening, but also to calves confined for dairy farming.

Operative part:

Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 of 14 April 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement, referred to in Article 4 of that directive, according to which the conditions relating to the rearing of calves must comply with the general provisions set out in the annex to that directive, including point 8 of that annex, which prohibits, subject to exceptions, the tethering of calves, applied to calves kept confined by a farmer in the context of a dairy farming operation for agricultural purposes.
16

As it had doubts as to the applicability of the provisions governing the free movement of goods and agreements between undertakings to the DVGW’s activities, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is Article 28 EC …, if appropriate in conjunction with Article [86(2)] EC …, to be interpreted as meaning that private-law bodies which have been set up for the purpose of drawing up technical standards in a particular field and certifying products on the basis of those technical standards are bound by the aforementioned provisions when drawing up technical standards and in the certification process where the national legislature expressly regards the products in respect of which certificates have been issued as lawful, thus making it at least considerably more difficult in practice to distribute products in respect of which certificates have not been issued? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is Article 81 EC … to be interpreted as meaning that the activity pursued by a private-law body in the field of drawing up technical standards and certifying products on the basis of those technical standards, as described in question 1, is to be regarded as “economic” where the body is controlled by those undertakings? If the first part of this question is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 81 EC … to be interpreted as meaning that the drawing-up of technical standards and the certification of products on the basis of those technical standards by an association of undertakings is capable of impeding trade between the Member States if a product lawfully manufactured and distributed in another Member State cannot be distributed in the importing Member State, or can be distributed there only with considerable difficulty, because it does not meet the requirements of the technical standard and, in the light of the predominance of the technical standard on the market and of a legal provision adopted by the national legislature to the effect that a certificate from the association of undertakings must indicate compliance with the requirements laid down by law, distribution without such a certificate is virtually impossible, and if the technical standard would not be applicable if it had been adopted directly by the national legislature because it infringes the principle of the free movement of goods?’
9

Recital 24 in the preamble to the Rome I Regulation reads as follows: ‘With more specific reference to consumer contracts … [c]onsistency with [the Brussels I Regulation] requires both that there be a reference to the concept of directed activity as a condition for applying the consumer protection rule and that the concept be interpreted harmoniously in [the Brussels I Regulation] and this Regulation, bearing in mind that a joint declaration by the Council and the Commission on Article 15 of [the Brussels I Regulation] states that “for Article 15(1)(c) to be applicable it is not sufficient for an undertaking to target its activities at the Member State of the consumer’s residence, or at a number of Member States including that Member State; a contract must also be concluded within the framework of its activities”. The declaration also states that “the mere fact that an Internet site is accessible is not sufficient for Article 15 to be applicable, although a factor will be that this Internet site solicits the conclusion of distance contracts and that a contract has actually been concluded at a distance, by whatever means. In this respect, the language or currency which a website uses does not constitute a relevant factor”.’
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 —

Commission v Spain



(Case C-403/11)

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/60/EC – River basin management plans – Publication and reporting to the Commission – Public information and consultation – Failure to undertake

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Submission of evidence that the obligation has not been fulfilled – Burden on the Member State concerned to refute evidence (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 20)

2. Environment – Community water policy – Directive 2000/60 – Obligation of the Member States to publish river basin management plans – Failure to comply with the obligation to consult the public and to provide the Commission and the Member States concerned with copies of those plans – Failure to fulfill obligations (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60, Arts 13(1) to (3) and (6), 14(1)(c) and 15(1) (see paras 21-23)

3. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on the national legal system – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 25)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 13(1), (2), (3) and (6), Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) – River basin management plans – Public information and consultation – Reporting of those management plans.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the Kingdom of Spain:

– by failing to adopt, by 22 December 2009, river basin management plans, except in the case of the river basin district of Catalonia, and by failing to send to the European Commission and other Member States concerned, by 22 March 2010, copies of those plans, in accordance with Article 13(1) to (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, and

– by not having undertaken, by no later than 22 December 2008, except as regards the river basin districts of Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, Tenerife, Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Andalusian Mediterranean basin, Tinto-Odiel-Piedras, Guadalete-Barbate, Galician coast, Miño-Sil, Douro, Western Cantabria and Eastern Cantabria, the process of public information and consultation concerning the proposed river basin management plans, in accordance with Article 14(1)(c) of that directive;

has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
52

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding the recipient of an invoice from being refused the right to deduct input VAT because there is no actual taxable transaction even though, in the tax adjustment notice addressed to the issuer of that invoice, the VAT declared by the latter was not adjusted. However, if, in the light of fraud or irregularities, committed by the issuer of the invoice or upstream of the transaction relied upon as the basis for the right of deduction, that transaction is considered not to have been actually carried out, it must be established, on the basis of objective factors and without requiring of the recipient of the invoice checks which are not his responsibility, that he knew or should have known that that transaction was connected with VAT fraud, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
54

With respect, in the second place, to the consumer’s right to terminate the supply contract he has concluded in the event of a unilateral alteration of the tariffs applied by the supplier, it is of fundamental importance, as the Advocate General says in substance in point 85 of her Opinion, that the right of termination given to the consumer is not purely formal but can actually be exercised. That would not be the case if, for reasons connected with the method of exercise of the right of termination or the conditions of the market concerned, the consumer has no real possibility of changing supplier, or if he has not been informed suitably in good time of the forthcoming change, thus depriving him of the possibility of checking how it is calculated and, if appropriate, of changing supplier. Account must be taken in particular of whether the market concerned is competitive, the possible cost to the consumer of terminating the contract, the time between the notification and the coming into force of the new tariffs, the information provided at the time of that communication, and the cost to be borne and the time taken to change supplier.
7

Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive provide: ‘2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. 3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. 4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.’
25

By decision of 24 January 2012, received at the Court on 25 January 2012, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad withdrew its first and third questions, retaining only the following four questions submitted for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is Article 3(2) of [the Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that it permits a Member State to assume responsibility for examining an application for asylum where no personal circumstances exist in relation to the asylum seeker which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of [the Regulation] and where the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of [the Regulation] has not responded to a request to take back the applicant pursuant to Article 20(1) of [the Regulation], given that that regulation does not contain any provisions concerning compliance with the principle of solidarity pursuant to Article 80 TFEU? 2. What is the content of the right to asylum under Article 18 of the Charter ... in conjunction with Article 53 of that Charter and in conjunction with the definition in Article 2(c) of and recital 12 in the preamble to [the Regulation]? 3. Is Article 3(2) of [the Regulation], in relation to the obligation under Article 78(1) TFEU to comply with instruments under international law on asylum, to be interpreted as meaning that in the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to [the Regulation], the Member States are obliged to request the [UNHCR] to present its views, where facts and conclusions therefrom are set out in documents of that Office to the effect that the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of [the Regulation] is in breach of provisions of European Union law on asylum? [4.] If [the third] question is answered in the affirmative, … [i]f such a request is not made to the [UNHCR] to present its views, does this constitute a substantial infringement of the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3 of [the Regulation] and an infringement of the right to good administration and the right to an effective legal remedy pursuant to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter …, specifically also in the light of Article 21 of Directive [2005/85], which provides that that Office has the right to present its views when individual applications for asylum are examined?’
25

That request was made following a report of the Servicio Ejecutivo of 24 January 2007, which stated that Jyske was carrying on in Spain a substantial operation comprising, inter alia, the grant of mortgages for the purchase of property in Spain. The report stated that ‘in order to develop such an operation in Spain, the institution has dual support or backing, namely from the branch in Spain of the parent company and from two firms of lawyers in Marbella (Spain). According to information in the public domain, the proprietor of one of the two firms was investigated for money laundering offences and his name appears, as does the name of the other firm of lawyers mentioned above, in connection with a number of operations divulged to the Servicio Ejecutivo by other persons subject to a duty of disclosure regarding evidence of money laundering.’ In the light of those facts, the Servicio Ejecutivo considered that there was a very high risk that Jyske was being used for money laundering operations in the context of its activities in Spain under the freedom to provide services. According to the report of the Servicio Ejecutivo of 24 January 2007, the mechanism used for this purpose consisted in creating in Gibraltar ‘corporate structures ultimately intended to prevent detection of the identity of the actual and final owner of property acquired in Spain, essentially on the Costa del Sol, and of … the origin of the monies used for the purposes of such acquisition.’
34

At paragraph 10 of the judgment in Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone [1984] ECR 377, the Court interpreted the notion of ‘freedom to provide services’ within the meaning of Article 59 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 59 of the EC Treaty, which, in turn, after amendment, became Article 49 EC), which now corresponds to Article 56 TFEU. It found that, in order to enable services to be provided, the person providing the service may go to the Member State where the person for whom it is provided is established or else the latter may go to the State in which the person providing the service is established. It stated, inter alia, that whilst the former case is expressly mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EC Treaty, which in turn became the third paragraph of Article 50 EC), which now corresponds to the third paragraph of Article 57 TFEU and permits the person providing the service to pursue his activity temporarily in the Member State where the service is provided under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals, the latter case is the necessary corollary thereof, which fulfills the objective of liberalising all gainful activity not covered by the free movement of goods, persons and capital.
6

Article 99(2) of Law 35/2006 on personal income tax and amending in part the laws on corporation tax, non-residents’ income tax and wealth tax (Ley 35/2006 del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas y de modificación parcial de las leyes de los Impuestos sobre Sociedades, sobre la Renta de no residentes y sobre el Patrimonio) of 28 November 2006 (BOE No 285, of 29 November 2006, p. 41734) provides: ‘Legal persons and entities, including those subject to the rules on attribution of income, which pay income subject to the present tax, shall be required to withhold and to pay an amount as an advance payment of the personal income tax owed by the recipient of the income. The amount to be paid to the treasury, and the conditions and procedure for payment, shall be laid down by regulation. The following shall be subject to the same obligations: taxpayers carrying on economic activities, in respect of the income which they pay in the exercise of their activities, and natural and legal persons, and other entities not resident in Spanish territory but operating in that territory through a permanent establishment, or which do not have a permanent establishment but pay income from employment and other income subject to the withholding or payment in advance of tax, which constitutes deductible expenditure for the purpose of obtaining the income referred to in Article 24(2) of the consolidated text of the Law on non-residents’ income tax. ... The representative designated in accordance with the provisions of Article 86(1) of the consolidated text of the Law on the organisation and supervision of private insurance, acting on behalf of the insurance company operating under the freedom to provide services, shall be required to withhold and make an advance payment of tax in respect of operations carried out in Spain. Pension funds established in another Member State offering occupational pension schemes in Spain subject to Spanish legislation shall be required, under the provisions of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10), to designate a representative resident for tax purposes in Spain who will represent them so far as concerns tax obligations. That representative shall be required to withhold and make an advance payment of tax in respect of operations carried out in Spain. ...’