ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees — Provisions of the convention not binding upon the European Union — Failure to mention any rule of EU law making a renvoi to Article 31 of the convention — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. 31; Council Directive 2004/83)

Summary

It is only where and in so far as the European Union has assumed the powers previously exercised by the Member States in the field to which an international convention not concluded by the European Union applies and, therefore, the provisions of the convention have the effect of binding the European Union that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret such a convention.

Although several pieces of EU legislation have been adopted in the field to which the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees applies as part of the implementation of a Common European Asylum System, it is undisputed that the Member States have retained certain powers falling within that field, in particular relating to the subject-matter covered by Article 31 of that convention. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to interpret directly Article 31 of that convention.

The fact that Article 78 TFEU provides that the common policy on asylum must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention and that Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes clear that the right to asylum is to be guaranteed with due respect for that convention and the Protocol relating to the status of refugees of 31 January 1967 is not such as to call into question the finding that the Court does not have jurisdiction.

In addition, although it is true that it is clearly in the interests of the European Union that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, the provisions of international agreements which have been taken over by national law and by EU law should be given a uniform interpretation, irrespective of the circumstances in which they are to apply, it must be noted that Article 31 of the Geneva Convention has not been taken over in a piece of EU legislation, a number of provisions of EU law referring to that article.

Although the Court did indeed already accept that it had jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of the Geneva Convention to which EU law made a renvoi , such cannot be the case where the request for a preliminary ruling contains no mention of any rule of EU law which makes a renvoi to Article 31 of the Geneva Convention.

(see paras 23-26, 28)
Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

In principle, the situation of passengers on a flight does not change substantially when their aircraft touches down on the runway at the destination airport, when that aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or when the chocks are applied, as the passengers continue to be subject, in the enclosed space in which they are sitting, to various constraints. It is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers may in principle resume their normal activities without being subject to those constraints.

(see paras 23-25, 27, operative part)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant points of EU law — Reformulation of the questions

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Criteria — Characteristics and objective properties — Scope — Intended use of a product — Included — Conditions

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Diagnostic or laboratory reagents within the meaning of Heading 3822 — Definition — Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature — Not included

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 861/2010, Annex I)
Case C‑429/13 P

Kingdom of Spain

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Cohesion fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Irregularities in the application of the public procurement legislation — Adoption of the decision by the European Commission — Failure to comply with the time-limit — Consequences’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 22 October 2014

Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — Financing by the EU — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Financial corrections — Time-limit for the adoption of the Commission’s decision — Impossibility of adopting the decision after the expiry of that time-limit (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 100(5) and 108(2)) Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Non-compliance with the time-limit imposed by the EU legislature — Examination by the Court of its own motion (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5))

See the text of the decision. (see paras 29-33) See the text of the decision. (see para. 34)

Case C‑429/13 P

Kingdom of Spain

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Cohesion fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Irregularities in the application of the public procurement legislation — Adoption of the decision by the European Commission — Failure to comply with the time-limit — Consequences’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 22 October 2014

Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — Financing by the EU — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Financial corrections — Time-limit for the adoption of the Commission’s decision — Impossibility of adopting the decision after the expiry of that time-limit (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 100(5) and 108(2)) Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Non-compliance with the time-limit imposed by the EU legislature — Examination by the Court of its own motion (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5))
1.

Declares that, by imposing, through lists of construction rules referred to in the Construction Codes established by the Länder, on construction products covered by the harmonisation measures EN 681-2:2000, ‘Elastomeric Seals — Materials requirements for pipe joint seals used in water and drainage applications — Part 2: Thermoplastic elastomers’, EN 13162:2008, ‘Thermal insulation products for buildings — Factory made mineral wool (MW) products — Specification’ and EN 13241-1, ‘Industrial, commercial and garage doors and gates — Product standard — Part 1: Products without fire resistance or smoke control characteristics’, and bearing the ‘CE’ marking, additional requirements for effective market access of those products and their use on German territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003;
In order to establish whether a product has been dumped, the ordinary course of trade is a concept which relates to the character of the sales themselves and not the price of the product. Where a sale is concluded on terms and conditions that are incompatible with commercial practice for sales of the like product on that market at the relevant time for determining whether or not dumping has occurred, that sale does not constitute an appropriate basis on which to determine the normal value of the like product on that market.

Furthermore, since the price of a product is only one of the conditions of a commercial transaction, the question whether a price is charged in the ordinary course of trade depends also on the other conditions of a transaction which are capable of affecting the prices charged, such as the volume of the transaction, the additional obligations assumed by the parties to that transaction or the delivery period. In the context of that assessment, which has to be carried out on a case-by-case basis, the institutions must take into consideration all the relevant factors and all the particular circumstances relating to the sales at issue.

Concerning the inclusion, in the calculation of the profit margin established for the purposes of constructing normal value, of a premium to cover the risk of non-payment artificially boosting the normal value arrived at by means of that calculation, with the result that that normal value no longer reflects as closely as possible the sale price of a product as it would be if the product in question were sold in the country of origin in the ordinary course of trade, such an inclusion amounts to the insertion into that calculation of a factor which does not go to establishing the price at which the product concerned would be sold in normal conditions on the domestic market. In such a case, the institutions must examine whether those conditions have been applied to all customers in general on the market of the like product.

(see paras 25, 27-30, 32)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 –

Commission v Spain

(Case C‑576/13) ( 1 )

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Dock-work undertakings — Management of workers for the provision of cargo-handling services — Prohibition on using workers on the employment market’

Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — National legislation obliging cargo-handling undertakings operating in ports of general interest to register with the Dockers’ Management Public Limited Liability Company and laying down restrictions concerning the recruitment of their workers — Unlawful — Justification — Protection of workers — No guarantee of safety in port waters (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38, 48-58, operative part)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by obliging undertakings of other Member States wishing to exercise the activity of cargo-handling in Spanish ports of general interest, first, to register with the Dockers’ Management Public Limited Liability Company (‘Sociedad Anónima de Gestion de Estibadores Portuarios’) and, as appropriate, to hold shares in that company and, secondly, to employ as a priority workers provided by that company, including a minimum number on permanent contracts, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 –

Commission v Spain

(Case C‑576/13) ( 1 )

‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Dock-work undertakings — Management of workers for the provision of cargo-handling services — Prohibition on using workers on the employment market’

Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — National legislation obliging cargo-handling undertakings operating in ports of general interest to register with the Dockers’ Management Public Limited Liability Company and laying down restrictions concerning the recruitment of their workers — Unlawful — Justification — Protection of workers — No guarantee of safety in port waters (Art. 49 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38, 48-58, operative part)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by obliging undertakings of other Member States wishing to exercise the activity of cargo-handling in Spanish ports of general interest, first, to register with the Dockers’ Management Public Limited Liability Company (‘Sociedad Anónima de Gestion de Estibadores Portuarios’) and, as appropriate, to hold shares in that company and, secondly, to employ as a priority workers provided by that company, including a minimum number on permanent contracts, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014
2.

Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the date of delivery of this judgment, the Kingdom of Sweden shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 4 000 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Commission v Sweden (C‑607/10, EU:C:2012:192), from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the first judgment has been complied with;
Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the continued grant of funding for higher education outside that State subject to the rule that the student applying for such funding has resided in that Member State for a period of at least three out of the six years preceding his enrolment.

By making the continued grant of funding for studies abroad subject to the three-out-of-six-years rule, the legislation at issue is liable to penalise an applicant merely because he has exercised his right to freedom of movement and residence in another Member State, given the effect that exercising that freedom is likely to have on the possibility of receiving funding for higher education.

In that regard, the integration of students, which is established by the existence of a connecting link between the society of the Member State providing a benefit and the recipient of the benefit in question, can constitute an objective consideration of public interest which is capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of citizens of the Union.

However, the legislation at issue, inasmuch as it constitutes a restriction on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union, does not make it possible to take account of other factors which may connect a student to the Member State providing the benefit, such as the nationality of the student, his schooling, family, employment, language skills or the existence of other social and economic factors. Likewise, the employment of the family members on whom the student depends in the Member State providing the benefit may be one of the factors to be taken into account in assessing those connecting links.

Accordingly, the three-out-of-six-years rule remains both too exclusive and too arbitrary in that it unduly favours an element which is not necessarily representative of the degree of integration of the applicant in the Member State concerned at the time when the application for funding is submitted. Consequently, such national legislation cannot be considered to be proportionate to the objective of integration.

(see paras 31, 36, 41, 43, 45, operative part)
Under Article 272 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 256 TFEU, the General Court has jurisdiction to give judgment, at first instance, pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract governed by public or private law concluded by or on behalf of the European Union. It follows from the foregoing that Article 272 TFEU is a specific provision allowing the courts of the European Union to be seised under an arbitration clause agreed by the parties for contracts governed by either public or private law, and without restriction as regards the nature of the action to be brought before the courts of the European Union.

Under the arbitration clause set out in the contracts at issue, the General Court or the Court of Justice, as the case may be, has jurisdiction to hear disputes between the European Union and the contractors as regards the validity, application or interpretation of those contracts. Nor does that arbitration clause limit the jurisdiction of the General Court or the Court of Justice on the basis of the nature of the action. Having regard to its wording, that arbitration clause is thus capable of establishing the jurisdiction of the General Court or the Court of Justice to hear a declaratory action, such as that at issue, concerning a dispute between the European Union and the appellant in relation to the application or interpretation of those contracts.

(see paras 22, 23, 25, 26)
In the field of the common foreign and security policy and, more specifically, of the measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation, the release of certain funds is an exception to the freezing of funds principle, the competent authority having to make an assessment on a case-by-case basis and not, therefore, being authorised to give general approval to a certain category of transactions in respect of which the entities concerned would be relieved of the need to request authorisation on a case-by-case basis.

That conclusion follows from the clear, precise and detailed wording of Articles 7 to 10 of Regulation No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and of Articles 16 to 19 and 21 of Regulation No 961/2010 which repealed it, which provide, in each case, for the conditions for the release of funds to be scrutinised by the competent authority and for the Sanctions Committee or the Member States and the Commission, as appropriate, to be informed so that they may respond in accordance with the provisions applicable.

(see paras 76, 77)
Joined Cases C‑464/13 and C‑465/13

Europäische Schule München

v

Silvana Oberto

and

Barbara O’Leary

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Statute of the European Schools — Competence of the Complaints Board of the European Schools to rule on a fixed-term employment contract entered into between a European school and a teacher not posted or seconded by a Member State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 11 March 2015

International agreements — Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools — Sole jurisdiction of the Complaints Board — Dispute concerning the legality of an agreement on limiting the duration of the employment relationship included in an employment contract concluded between a part-time teacher and the headteacher of a school — Included — No adverse effect on the right to effective judicial protection

International agreements — Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools — Sole jurisdiction of the Complaints Board — Concept of an ‘act … adversely affecting’ — Agreement concerning the fixed-term nature of the employment relationship contained in an employment contract concluded between the school and a part-time teacher — Included

An international agreement, such as the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, which was concluded on the basis of Article 235 of the EC Treaty (which became Article 308 EC, now Article 352 TFEU) by the European Communities, which were empowered to do so by Council Decision 94/557 authorising the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community to sign and conclude the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools is, as far as the European Union is concerned, an act of an EU institution within the meaning of point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. As from its entry into force, the provisions of such an agreement form an integral part of the EU legal system; within the framework of that system the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of such an agreement. (see paras 29, 30)

The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as meaning that part-time teachers employed by a European school who are not seconded by the Member States are among the persons covered by that provision, unlike the administrative and ancillary staff, who are excluded from it. (see para. 29, operative part 1)

The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an agreement concerning the fixed-term nature of the employment relationship, contained in the employment contract concluded between the school and the part-time teacher, from being regarded as constituting an act adversely affecting that part-time teacher. (see para. 59, operative part 2)
Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, which, in the case of a transfer of assets from a company located within the territory of that Member State to a permanent establishment of that company located within the territory of another Member State, provides for the disclosure of unrealised capital gains pertaining to those assets which have been generated within the territory of that first Member State, the taxation of such capital gains and the staggered recovery of the tax relating to those gains over 10 annual instalments.

It is true that such tax legislation constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU in so far as the disclosure of those capital gains and their taxation would not take place in relation to a similar transfer within the national territory, since those unrealised capital gains are not taxed until they have actually been realised.

However, that restriction may be objectively justified by overriding reasons in the public interest recognised by EU law. In fact, that tax legislation is appropriate for ensuring the preservation of the allocation of powers of taxation between the Member States concerned, since it covers the case of a transfer of assets to a permanent establishment located within the territory of a Member State other than the Member State at issue, whose income is exempt from tax in that latter Member State.

Accordingly, the disclosure of unrealised capital gains relating to the transferred assets generated prior to that transfer within the tax jurisdiction of the Member State at issue, and the taxation of those unrealised capital gains, is intended to ensure the taxation of those unrealised capital gains, generated within the tax jurisdiction of that Member State. The taxation of income relating to those assets generated after such a transfer falls to the other Member State, in whose territory the permanent establishment is located.

A staggered recovery of the tax on unrealised capital gains by 10 annual instalments, instead of immediate recovery, constitutes a proportionate measure to attain the objective of preserving the allocation of taxation powers between the Member States.

(see paras 37, 39, 40, 46, 47, 51-53, operative part)