ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Economic activities for the purposes of Article 12 of Directive 2006/112 – Definition

(Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 9(1), 12(1) and 295(1)(3))

Summary

The supply of land designated for development must be regarded as subject to value added tax under the national legislation of a Member State if that Member State has availed itself of the option provided for by Article 12(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, irrespective of whether the transaction is carried out on a continuing basis or whether the person who effected the supply carries out an activity of a producer, a trader or a person supplying services, to the extent that that transaction does not constitute the mere exercise of the right of ownership by its holder.

A natural person who carried out an agricultural activity on land that was reclassified, following a change to urban management plans which occurred for reasons beyond his control, as land designated for development must not be regarded as a taxable person for value added tax for the purposes of Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of Directive 2006/112 when he begins to sell that land if those sales fall within the scope of the management of the private property of that person.

If, on the other hand, that person takes active steps, for the purpose of concluding those sales, to market property by mobilising resources similar to those deployed by a producer, a trader or a person supplying services within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112, that person must be regarded as carrying out an ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of that article and must, therefore, be regarded as a taxable person for value added tax.

The fact that that person is a ‘flat-rate farmer’ within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Directive 2006/112 is irrelevant in this respect.

(see para. 49, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Directive 2001/42 – Consultations – Authority to be consulted

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42, Art. 6(3))

2. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Directive 2001/42 – Consultations – Obligation, for the Member State, to give the authorities and the public a sufficient period to express their opinions – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42, Art. 6(2)(3) and (4))

Summary

1. In circumstances in which, for part of a Member State’s territory having decentralised powers, a single authority is designated pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, that provision does not require the creating or designating of another authority to be consulted within the meaning of that provision, so long as, within the authority usually responsible for undertaking consultation on environmental matters and designated as such, the separation of functions is so arranged that an administrative entity internal to it enjoys real autonomy, meaning, in particular, that it is provided with administrative and human resources of its own and is thus in a position to fulfil the tasks entrusted to authorities to be consulted for the purposes of Article 6(3) of that directive and, in particular, to give an objective opinion on the plan or programme envisaged by the authority to which it is attached.

(see paras 41, 43, operative part 1)

2. Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as not requiring the national legislation transposing the directive to lay down precisely the periods within which the authorities designated and the public affected or likely to be affected for the purposes of Article 6(3) and (4) should be able to express their opinions on a particular draft plan or programme and on the environmental report upon it. Consequently, Article 6(2) does not preclude such periods from being laid down on a case-by-case basis by the authority which prepares the plan or programme. However, in that latter situation, for the purposes of the consultation of those authorities and the public on a given draft plan or programme, Article 6(2) requires the period actually laid down to be sufficient and thus to allow them a genuine opportunity of expressing their opinions in good time on that draft plan or programme and on the report on the environmental effects of that plan or programme.

(see para. 50, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Persons liable to pay the tax

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 21(1)(b))

Summary

Article 21(1)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 2000/65, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for him to be considered a taxable person who is not established within the territory of the country, it is sufficient that the taxable person should have established the seat of his economic activity outside that country.

In particular, in a situation which is characterised, on the one hand, by the fact that the seat of the economic activity of the taxable person is known and is located outside the country of the customer and, on the other, by the circumstance that it is not disputed that this is the actual, genuine seat and not a fictitious seat or presence, any personal residence which the taxable person may have within the country cannot be taken into account.

The presumption that the services are provided by a taxable person not established within the territory of the country when the seat of that person’s economic activity is located outside that country, wherever his personal residence may be, allows the customer established in a country, who is aware that the supplier has the seat of his economic activity outside that country, to avoid having to undertake research concerning the personal residence of that supplier and, therefore, contributes to ensuring accurate and reliable collection of VAT.

(see paras 28, 34-36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81 – Exemption of fuel used for the purposes of navigation within Union waters, other than in private pleasure craft – Definition of ‘navigation’

(Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8(1)(c))

Summary

Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Directive 94/74 must be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is permanently fixed to a vessel but which, having its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion engine, are not exempt from excise duties.

It is apparent from the wording of that provision that the exemption at issue is subject to the mineral oils’ being used as fuel for the purposes of navigation within Union waters. In those circumstances, that consumption cannot be considered to be inherent in the movement of the vessel to which the excavator is fixed.

(see paras 20, 23-24, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Camel meat – Classification under subheading 0208 90 40 of the Combined Nomenclature – Condition – Camels which lived in the wild and were hunted

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I; Commission Regulation No 1549/2006)

Summary

The Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that camel meat must be classified under subheading 0208 90 40 as ‘other game meat’ if the camels from which that meat comes lived in the wild and were hunted.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance – Exclusion clauses – Accident caused by an uninsured driver

(Council Directives 72/166, 84/5, Art. 2(1), and 90/232, Art. 1, first para.)

Summary

The first paragraph of Article 1 of Third Directive 90/232 and Article 2(1) of Second Directive 84/5 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as precluding national rules the effect of which is to exclude automatically the requirement for the insurer to compensate a passenger who is a victim of a road traffic accident when that accident was caused by a driver who was not insured under the insurance policy and when the victim, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident, was insured to drive the vehicle himself and had given permission to the driver to drive it.

That interpretation does not differ depending on whether the insured victim was aware that the person to whom he gave permission to drive the vehicle was not insured to do so, whether he believed that the driver was insured or whether or not he had turned his mind to that question.

The insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles referred to in Article 3(1) of First Directive 72/166 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must cover all the victims other than the driver of the vehicle that caused the damage or injury, unless one of the exceptions expressly provided for by the First, Second or Third Directives applies.

(see paras 44, 46, 50, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Citizenship of the European Union – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Directive 2004/38 – Right to leave and to enter – Field of application

(Art. 21 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 4(1))

2. Citizenship of the European Union – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Directive 2004/38 – Restriction on the right to enter and reside for reasons of public policy or public security

(Art. 21 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 27)

Summary

1. The status of a citizen of the Union under Article 20 TFEU bestows on a national of a Member State rights pertaining to that status, including against his Member State of origin, and in particular the right conferred by Article 21 TFEU to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The right of freedom of movement includes both the right for citizens of the European Union to enter a Member State other than that of origin and the right to leave the State of origin. The fundamental freedoms guaranteed by that treaty would be rendered meaningless if the Member State of origin could, without valid justification, prohibit its own nationals from leaving its territory in order to enter the territory of another Member State.

Since Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States expressly provides that all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State, the situation of a person prohibited from leaving a State of which he is a national therefore falls within the ambit of that directive.

(see paras 24-27)

2. Article 21 TFEU and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States do not preclude national legislation that permits the restriction of the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State in particular on the ground that he has been convicted of a criminal offence of narcotic drug trafficking in another State, provided that (i) the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, (ii) the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it and (iii) that measure is subject to effective judicial review permitting a determination of its legality as regards matters of fact and law in the light of the requirements of European Union law.

(see para. 42, operative part)
Article 82 EC covers not only those practices that directly cause harm to consumers but also practices that cause consumers harm by interfering with the free play of competition. It is in the latter sense that the expression ‘exclusionary abuse’ is to be understood.

The finding that an undertaking has a dominant position is not in itself a ground of criticism of the undertaking concerned. It is in no way the purpose of Article 82 EC to prevent an undertaking from acquiring, on its own merits, the dominant position on a market. Nor does that provision seek to ensure that competitors less efficient than the undertaking with the dominant position should remain on the market. Thus, not every exclusionary effect is necessarily detrimental to competition. Competition on the merits may lead to the departure from the market or the marginalisation of competitors that are less efficient and so less attractive to consumers from the point of view of, among other things, price, choice, quality or innovation.

Article 82 EC applies, in particular, to the conduct of a dominant undertaking that, through recourse to methods different from those governing normal competition on the basis of the performance of commercial operators, has the effect, to the detriment of consumers, of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition existing in the market or the growth of that competition. Thus, Article 82 EC prohibits a dominant undertaking from, among other things, adopting pricing practices that have an exclusionary effect on competitors considered to be as efficient as it is itself and strengthening its dominant position by using methods other than those that are part of competition on the merits. Accordingly, in that light, not all competition by means of price may be regarded as legitimate.

The fact that the practice of a dominant undertaking may be described as ‘price discrimination’, that is to say, charging different customers or different classes of customers different prices for goods or services whose costs are the same or, conversely, charging a single price to customers for whom supply costs differ, cannot of itself suggest that there exists an exclusionary abuse.

(see paras 20-22, 24, 25, 30)
Keywords

Summary

Keywords Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope — Contracts in the field of defence (Art. 296(1)(b) EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 10) Summary Article 10 of Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 296(1)(b) EC, must be interpreted as authorising a Member State to set aside the procedures laid down by that directive in the case of a public contract awarded by a contracting authority in the field of defence for the acquisition of material which, although intended for specifically military purposes, also presents possibilities for essentially identical civilian applications only if that material, by virtue of its intrinsic characteristics, may be regarded as having been specially designed and developed, also as a result of substantial modifications, for such purposes, this being a matter for the referring court to determine. (see para. 46, operative part)

Case C-615/10

Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus)

‛Directive 2004/18/EC — Public contracts in the field of defence — Article 10 — Article 296(1)(b) EC — Protection of a Member State’s essential security interests — Trade in arms, munitions and war material — Product procured by a contracting authority specifically for military purposes — Existence, as regards that product, of a potential and largely identical civilian application — Tiltable turntable for carrying out electromagnetic measurements — Contract not put out to tender in accordance with the procedures provided for by Directive 2004/18’

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope — Contracts in the field of defence

(Art. 296(1)(b) EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 10)

Article 10 of Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 296(1)(b) EC, must be interpreted as authorising a Member State to set aside the procedures laid down by that directive in the case of a public contract awarded by a contracting authority in the field of defence for the acquisition of material which, although intended for specifically military purposes, also presents possibilities for essentially identical civilian applications only if that material, by virtue of its intrinsic characteristics, may be regarded as having been specially designed and developed, also as a result of substantial modifications, for such purposes, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(see para. 46, operative part)
The compatibility with European Union law of national legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products must be assessed in the light of Article 34 TFEU, and not Article 37 TFEU, since, on the one hand, it affects the free movement of goods within the European Union, without, however, governing the exercise of the exclusive right relating to a monopoly of a commercial character, and, on the other hand, it is separable from the operation of the monopoly as it relates not to the selling arrangements for retail sale of tobacco products on the territory of the Member State concerned but to the upstream market in those products. Such a measure is not intended to organise the monopoly’s system of product selection, nor does it target the sale network of the monopoly in question or the marketing or advertising of the products distributed by the monopoly.

Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products from other Member States.

Such legislation constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, since it forces the tobacco retailers to procure their supplies from authorised wholesalers. Those retailers can sell a tobacco product coming from another Member State only if such a product is included in the range of products offered by the authorised wholesalers in the Member State concerned and if those wholesalers have the product in stock.

Moreover, that restriction cannot be justified by the necessity of ensuring fiscal, customs, and health control of tobacco products, the necessity of protecting consumers, or on grounds of a purely economic nature.

(see paras 38, 39, 50, 52, 53, 56, operative part)
A Member State does not fail to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 TFEU and 56 TFEU where its legislation provides for significantly lower benefits, where an insured person reliant on care temporarily stays in another Member State, than in the case of care received on its territory.

Whilst, when exercising the power to organise their social security systems, Member States must comply with EU law and, in particular, with the provisions on the freedom to provide services, and whilst, in the absence of provisions in Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008, referring specifically to the risk of reliance on care, benefits relating to that risk are to be assimilated to ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of that regulation, the fact remains that there are differences between benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care and sickness benefits in respect of medical treatment because, in particular, benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are not, in principle, intended to be paid on a short-term basis. It follows that the principles established in relation to the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in other Member States cannot immediately be applied to the national legislation at issue.

Moreover, as Article 48 TFEU provides for the coordination, not the harmonisation, of the legislation of the Member States relating to social security, the rules of the TFEU on free movement cannot guarantee an insured person that moving to another Member State will be neutral in terms of social security, in particular where sickness benefits or care-related benefits are concerned. In view of the disparities existing between the schemes and legislation of the Member States in this field, such a move may, in financial terms and depending on the case, be more or less advantageous for the person concerned.

(see paras 16, 49-51, 52, 57, 61, 62)
Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the non-fulfilment of the obligation to submit the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the period for discharging the relevant procedure laid down in the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 521(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge, including those re-exported outside the territory of the European Union, where the conditions set out in Article 859(9) of Regulation No 2454/93 are not considered to be fulfilled.

In those circumstances, the incurrence of a customs debt does not have the nature of a penalty, but must rather be regarded as the consequence of the finding that the conditions required to obtain the advantage derived from the application of the inward processing procedure in the form of a system of suspension have not been fulfilled. That procedure implies the granting of a conditional advantage, which cannot be granted if the applicable conditions are not respected, thereby making the suspension inapplicable and consequently justifying the imposition of customs.

As regards the risk of the incurrence of a double customs debt for the goods which were not re-exported, it is for the referring court to ensure that the customs authorities do not impose a second customs debt for goods in respect of which a customs debt has already been incurred on the basis of an earlier chargeable event.

(see paras 43, 46-48, operative part)