ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 1(3) of Regulation No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation is not applicable to identity cards issued by a Member States to its nationals regardless of the period of validity and the possibility of using them for the purposes of travel outside that State.

Article 4(3) of Regulation No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, must be interpreted as not requiring the Member States to guarantee, in their legislation, that biometric data collected and stored in accordance with that regulation will not be collected, processed and used for purposes other than the issue of the passport or travel document, since that is not a matter which falls within the scope of that regulation.

As regards all other uses and storage of that data, it is clear from Article 4(3) of Regulation No 2252/2004, which deals with the use of such data ‘[f]or the purpose of this Regulation’, read in the light of recital 5 in the preamble to Regulation No 444/2009, that the use and storage of that data are not governed by the latter regulation. That recital states that Regulation No 2252/2004 is without prejudice to any other use or storage of these data in accordance with national legislation of Member States and that it does not provide a legal base for setting up or maintaining databases for storage of those data in Member States, that matter being within the exclusive competence of the Member States.

(see paras 47, 53, operative part)
A first taxable person who has established his business in one Member State, and receives services supplied by a second taxable person established in another Member State, must be regarded as having a ‘fixed establishment’ within the meaning of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2008/8, in that other Member State, for the purpose of determining the place of taxation of those services, if that establishment is characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to enable it to receive the services supplied to it and use them for its business, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

As regards the point of reference for tax purposes, the wording of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 is similar to that of Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. Furthermore, both Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 and Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive are provisions determining the point of reference for tax purposes of supplies of services and pursue the same objective, so that the Court’s case-law on the interpretation of Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive can in principle be applied mutatis mutandis to the interpretation of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112. That conclusion is borne out by Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112, the objective of which, as stated in recital 4 in its preamble, is to ensure a more uniform application of the value added tax system by laying down rules implementing Directive 2006/112, in particular in respect of taxable persons, the supply of goods and services, and the place of taxable transactions.

Furthermore, the most appropriate, and thus the primary, point of reference for determining the place of supply of services for tax purposes is the place where the taxable person has established his business. The fact that a business such as that carried on by a company in one Member State, consisting in operating a system of electronic auctions which comprises, first, making an auction website available to a company in another Member State and, secondly, issuing and selling ‘bids’ to customers in that other Member State, can be carried on without requiring an effective human and material structure in the other Member State is not determinative. Despite its particular character, such a business requires at least a structure that is appropriate in terms especially of human and technical resources, such as appropriate computer equipment, servers and software.

It is only if that place of business does not lead to a rational result or creates a conflict with another Member State that another establishment may come into consideration.

(see paras 43, 44, 53, 58, 60, 65, operative part)
Article 2 of Commission Decision 1999/183/EC of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes must be interpreted as precluding the grant of investment aid concerning milling in relation to which the binding investment decision was made before the expiration of the period afforded to the Federal Republic of Germany to comply with that decision or before the publication in the Bundessteuerblatt of the measures taken to that effect, when the delivery of the capital asset and the determination and disbursement of the subsidy took place only after the expiration of that period or that publication, if the time at which an investment subsidy is considered to be granted is only after the expiration of that period. It is for the referring court to determine when an investment subsidy, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be considered to be granted, by taking account of all the conditions laid down by national law for obtaining the aid in question and ensuring that the prohibition laid down in Article 2(1) of Decision 1999/183 is not circumvented.
35

In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Can Article 2(1)(c) of [the VAT] be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition of a fixed intangible asset in exchange for assumption of the costs involved in improving a leased asset or an asset the use of which has been assigned in some other way constitutes payment for the service of making the improvement, regardless of the fact that, under the contract, the owner of the asset is not required to pay any remuneration? (2) Do Article 2(1)(c) and Article 26 of [the VAT] Directive preclude a national provision under which the supply of a service carried out free of charge and consisting in the improvement of a leased asset or of an asset the use of which has been assigned in some other way is in all circumstances to be regarded as taxable? Is it of significance for the purpose of answering this question, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that: — the party supplying the service carried out free of charge has exercised the right to deduct VAT on the goods and services used in making the improvements, a right which had not yet been refused him by a tax adjustment notice which had entered into force; — at the time of the inspection, the company had not yet begun to use the building for taxable supplies, but the contracts had not yet expired? (3) Do Articles 62 and 63 of [the VAT] Directive preclude a national provision according to which the chargeable event for the purposes of the tax on the supply does not occur at the time when the service is supplied (in this particular case, when improvements are made) but at the time when the asset which has been improved is actually returned, on the expiry of the contract or on the termination of its use? (4) If the first and second questions are answered in the negative: under which provision of Title VII of Directive 2006/112 is the taxable amount for purposes of value added tax to be determined in the case where a transaction carried out free of charge does not come within the scope of Article 26 of the directive?’
8

Article 11(1) of the Law on the residence, gainful employment and integration of foreign nationals in Federal territory (Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet), in the version published on 25 February 2008 (BGBl. 2008 I, p. 162) (the ‘Aufenthaltsgesetz’), as amended by the Law on the implementation of European Union directives on the right of residence and bringing national legislation into conformity with the EU Visa Code (Gesetz zur Umsetzung aufenthaltsrechtlicher Richtlinien der Europäischen Union und zur Anpassung nationaler Rechtsvorschriften an den EU-Visakodex) of 22 November 2011 (BGBl. 2011 I, p. 2258) (the ‘Law of 22 November 2011’), is worded as follows: ‘A foreign national who has been expelled, removed or deported may not re-enter Federal territory and reside there. He shall not be issued with a residence permit even where the conditions of entitlement under this law are met. A time-limit shall, upon application by the person concerned, be placed on the effects referred to in the first and second sentences. The time-limit shall be established taking account of the circumstances of the individual case and may exceed five years only where the foreign national has been expelled on the ground of a criminal conviction or if he represents a serious threat to public order or security. The assessment of the length of the time-limit shall take account of whether the foreign national left voluntarily or otherwise within the period of time provided for that purpose. The time-limit shall run from the time of leaving the country. No time-limit shall be applicable where the foreign national has been removed on account of a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, or on the basis of a removal order made pursuant to Paragraph 58a. The highest regional authority may permit exemptions from sentence 7 in individual cases.’
16

The Law of 21 December 2007 on the introduction of the Law on the child bonus, (Mémorial A 2007, p. 3949) amended, with effect from 2008, the system for the tax rebate for children provided for under Luxembourg legislation. Article 5 of that Law, which features under Title II thereof, provides as follows: ‘The Law of 21 December 2007 on the child bonus is hereby enacted. The articles of the abovementioned Law are as follows: “Article 1. For every child living, either in the joint household of his father and mother, or in the household of the father or mother who has sole responsibility for his education and maintenance, and for whom an entitlement to family allowances accrues, in accordance with Article 1 of the Law of 19 June 1985 on family allowances and creating the Caisse nationale des prestations familiales [(Mémorial A 1985, p. 680)], as amended, a child bonus shall be granted by way of automatic rebate in the tax reduction provided under Article 122 of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income tax, as amended. Article 2. The child bonus shall be fixed at [EUR] 922.50 per annum. It shall be paid during the tax year to which it relates, as provided for in detailed rules to be set out in the Grand-Ducal regulation referred to in Article 6. Together with the payment of family benefits, the [CNPF] shall discharge its legal obligations by making payment to the person assigned to receive family allowances as provided for in Article 5(1) and (4), or, in the case of the child for whom one of the parents has sole responsibility for his education and maintenance, to the parent so assigned, as provided in the first sentence of Article 5(2) of the Law of 19 June 1985 on family allowances and creating the Caisse nationale des prestations familiales, as amended. ... Article 4. Articles 23(2) and (3), 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Law of 19 June 1985 on family allowances and creating the Caisse nationale des prestations familiales, as amended, and Articles 208(4), 273(5), 276, 278(1) and (2), 291, 292a, 302(4), 311, 333 and 334(1) of the Social Insurance Code shall also be applicable for the implementation of this Law, with the appropriate adaptions of terminology where required. Article 5. The words “of the child bonus” are added to the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Law of 19 June 1985 on family allowances and creating the Caisse nationale des prestations familiales, as amended, and are inserted after “from the start of the school year”. Article 6. A Grand-Ducal regulation may set out the detailed rules for the application of this Law.” ...’
3

Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009 concerns opposition proceedings before OHIM, and is worded as follows: ‘… 2. If the applicant so requests, the proprietor of an earlier Community trade mark who has given notice of opposition shall furnish proof that, during the period of five years preceding the date of publication of the Community trade mark application, the earlier Community trade mark has been put to genuine use in the Community in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered and which he cites as justification for his opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use, provided the earlier Community trade mark has at that date been registered for not less than five years. In the absence of proof to this effect, the opposition shall be rejected. If the earlier Community trade mark has been used in relation to part only of the goods or services for which it is registered it shall, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, be deemed to be registered in respect only of that part of the goods or services. 3. Paragraph 2 shall apply to earlier national trade marks referred to in Article 8(2)(a), by substituting use in the Member State in which the earlier national trade mark is protected for use in the Community. …’
17

In those circumstances, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. When applying the mandatory provisions of Article 134 [of Directive 2006/112] to the provisions of Article 132(l)(m) [of that directive] in the circumstances of a body accepted to be a non-profit-making organisation making supplies of the right to play golf, what supplies, if any, constitute “the transactions exempted”? 2. Is it legitimate to restrict exemption under Article 132(l)(m) [of Directive 2006/112] by reference to whether the services of granting a right to play golf are made to a member of the non-profit-making organisation? 3. Are the provisions of Article 134 [of Directive 2006/112] to be interpreted as restricting exemption only to supplies which are “closely linked” (in the sense of peripheral) to the “transactions exempted” or to any supply falling within Article 132(1)(m) [of that directive]? 4. In circumstances where the non-profit-making organisation by reference to its publicly stated aims, regularly and consistently permits non-members to play golf, what is the interpretation to be placed on the “basic purpose” of making the charge to non-members? 5. For the purposes of Article 134(b) [of Directive 2006/112] to what must the “additional income” be additional? 6. If income derived from providing access to sporting facilities to non-members is not to be treated as “additional income” for the purposes of Article 134(b) [of Directive 2006/112], does Article 133(d) [of that directive] permit a Member State to exclude such income from exemption if it is likely to cause distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT, whilst not at the same time withdrawing the exemption from income derived from providing membership to members of the same non-profit-making organisations if the members’ subscriptions are themselves likely to cause at least some distortion of competition? 7. In particular, is it necessary for any condition implemented under Article 133(d) [of Directive 2006/112] to apply to all services supplied by the non-profit-making organisation otherwise falling within the exemption or is it permissible to allow a partial restriction i.e. permitting exemption for the supply of the right to play golf to members but not to non-members where both membership and non-membership supplies are in competition with commercial organisations? 8. What, if any, is the difference in requirement between Article 133(d) [of Directive 2006/112] which requires a “likely distortion of competition” and that in Article 134(b) [of that directive] which envisages only the existence of direct competition?’
7

Article 1649-0 A(1) to (5) of the GTC, as amended by Law No 2008-776 of 4 August 2008 on the modernisation of the economy (JORF, 5 August 2008, p. 12471), applicable to the right to restitution acquired in 2008 and 2009 by reference to income from 2006 and 2007 respectively, provided: ‘1. The right to restitution of the portion of tax that exceeds the threshold referred to in Article 1 is acquired by the taxpayer on 1 January of the second year following the year in which the income referred to at 4 was received. ... 2. Provided that they were paid in France and, firstly, for taxes other than those referred to at (e) and (f), that they are not deductible from a specific class of income and, secondly, for the taxes referred to at (a), (b) and (e), that they were regularly declared, the taxes to be taken into account for the determination of the right to restitution are: (a) income tax due on the income referred to at 4; (b) wealth tax levied for the year following the year in which the income referred to at 4 was received; (c) property tax ...; (d) residential tax …; (e) the contributions and deductions provided for in Articles … of the Social Security Code …; (f) the contributions and deductions provided for in Articles … of the Social Security Code … 3. The taxes referred to at 2 shall be reduced by income tax refunds received or by relief obtained during the year following the year in which the income referred to at 4 was received. ... 4. The income to be taken into account for the determination of the right to restitution shall be the income received by the taxpayer, with the exception of income in kind which is not subject to income tax pursuant to Section II of Article 15. That income consists of: (a) Net income subject to income tax …; (b) Proceeds liable to a withholding tax; (c) Income exempt from income tax received in the same year in France or outside France … 5. The following deductions shall be made from the income referred to in 4: … (d) taxes equivalent to those referred to at (a), (e) and (f) of 2 where those taxes have been paid abroad.’
5

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive provides: ‘1. For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites. 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.’
4

Article 9 of Directive 2000/60, entitled ‘Recovery of costs for water services’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter-pays principle. Member States shall ensure by 2010: — that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive, — an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services, based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of the polluter-pays principle. Member States may in so doing have regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected. 2. Member States shall report in the river basin management plans on the planned steps towards implementing paragraph 1 which will contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of this Directive and on the contribution made by the various water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services. 3. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the funding of particular preventive or remedial measures in order to achieve the objectives of this Directive. 4. Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in accordance with established practices not to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive. Member States shall report the reasons for not fully applying paragraph 1, second sentence, in the river basin management plans.’