ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Distribution rights

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 4(1))

Summary

The concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, of the original of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, applies only where there is a transfer of the ownership of that object. As a result, neither granting to the public the right to use reproductions of a work protected by copyright nor exhibiting to the public those reproductions without actually granting a right to use them can constitute such a form of distribution.

The concept of distribution ‘by sale or otherwise’ for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted in the light of the definitions given in the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, that directive being intended to implement at Community level the Community’s obligations under the those Treaties. Those Treaties link the concept of distribution exclusively to that of transfer of ownership.

The wording of the provisions relating to the exhaustion of the right of distribution in the Copyright Treaty and Directive 2001/29 points to the same conclusion. Thus, since Article 4(2) of that directive provides for the exhaustion of the distribution right within the Community in respect of the original or copies of the work on the first sale or other transfer of ownership, the same interpretation should be given to the term ‘otherwise’ in Article 4(1), because the two provisions form a whole.

Those findings are not affected by recitals 9 to 11 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, which state that harmonisation of copyright must take as a basis a high level of protection, that authors have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work and that the system for the protection of copyright must be rigorous and effective. That protection can be achieved only within the framework put in place by the Community legislature.

(see paras 31-38, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; EEA Agreement, Arts 11 and 13)

Summary

A Member State whose legislation prohibits the affixing of tinted film to the windscreens and the windows alongside the passenger seats in motor vehicles fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That prohibition affects the marketing of almost all coloured film, lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States or in States party to the EEA Agreement intended to be affixed to the windows of motor vehicles and is excessive and disproportionate with respect to the objectives of combating crime and ensuring road safety which it seeks to guarantee. Therefore, although it may be capable of facilitating the inspection of the passenger compartment of motor vehicles by means of simple observation from outside the vehicles, it does not follow that it is necessary to attain those objectives. In that connection, a visual inspection is only one means among others in order to fight crime and prevent offences relating to the obligation to wear seat belts, and at least some films, namely those with a sufficient degree of transparency, permit the desired visual inspection of the interior of motor vehicles.

(see paras 35, 38, 40-42, 46-47)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – General or hypothetical questions

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/83 – Alcohol and alcoholic beverages

(Council Directive 92/83, Art. 20, first indent)

Summary

1. The Court is not being asked to deliver an advisory opinion on a hypothetical question when a national court, called upon to rule in appeal proceedings how a product would be taxed under Community law if it was marketed on the national market, refers to it a question for a preliminary ruling, since that national court asks the Court a question concerning the interpretation of a provision of that law and since it considers that a preliminary ruling on that point is necessary in order to review the legality of a preliminary opinion concerning that matter.

The judicial nature of such proceedings is not affected by the fact that the tax administration which brought the appeal confirmed that preliminary opinion or by the fact that that opinion was not disputed by the party concerned, since the national court has unlimited jurisdiction, independently of the submissions of the parties.

Moreover, since there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decisions of that national court, it is obliged, under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC, to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

In that case, it is only by referring a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling that the objective pursued by that provision can be attained, that is, to ensure the proper application and uniform interpretation of Community law in all the Member States and to prevent a body of national case-law that is not in accordance with the rules of Community law from coming into existence in the Member State concerned.

(see paras 28-32)

2. Alcohol contained in cooking wine is, if it has an alcoholic strength exceeding 1.2% by volume, to be classified as ethyl alcohol as referred to in the first indent of Article 20 of Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The fact that cooking wine is, as such, regarded as an edible preparation does not affect that assessment. The first indent of Article 20 applies even when the products covered by that provision form part of a product which falls within another chapter of the combined nomenclature.

(see paras 37-38, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community law – General legal principles – Legal certainty – Nulla poena sine lege – Scope (see paras 38-40, 44-46)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 50-62)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 72-74, 86, 94)

4. Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court – Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the appraisal at first instance of the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking – Not included – Whether it may review that appraisal on the ground that the principle of non-discrimination was infringed – Included (Art. 81(1), EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 95, 114)

5. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Admissibility – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether lawful – Conditions (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58, first para.) (see paras 102-103)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Need to distinguish between the undertakings involved in the same infringement according to their total turnover – None (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, para. 1A, fifth subpara.) (see paras 119-123)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission , in which that Court dismissed in part the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 1) – Cartel concerning the market in methionine – Requirements of the principle of nulla poena sine lege in relation to the system of fines laid down by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH to bear the costs;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Sixth Directive – Provisions on rounding of the amount of the tax

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 11A(1)(a) and 22(3)(b))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Sixth Directive – Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality

(Council Directives 67/227, Art. 2, first para., and 77/388)

Summary

1. In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of value added tax, but those States must, when making that decision, observe the principles underpinning the common system of that tax, in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.

(see para. 33, operative part 1)

2. Community law, as it now stands, which includes the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, contains no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of value added tax.

Accordingly, the principle of fiscal neutrality does not entail any requirement that a particular method of rounding be applied, in so far as the method chosen by the Member State concerned ensures that the amount of value added tax to be collected by the tax authority corresponds exactly to the amount of that tax declared on the invoice and paid by the final consumer to the taxable person.

Further, while observance of the principle of proportionality requires, when rounding is necessary, it to be carried out in such a way that the rounded amount corresponds as closely as possible with the amount of value added tax arising from application of the rates in force, the fact remains that such an operation, of its nature, is intended to facilitate calculation and must, therefore, reconcile the requirement of, so far as possible, exact proportion with the practical necessity that the common system of value added tax based on the principle of a return from the taxable person should operate effectively.

(see paras 37, 39, 43, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Res judicata – Judgment of the Court finding that the applicant has standing to bring an action for annulment of a Commission decision – Decision treated by the Court as an act adversely affecting a party (see paras 33-35)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury – Causal link – Cumulative conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 39-40)

3. Non-contractual liability – Unlawful conduct of the institutions – Commission decision amending a condition for the award of a contract (Art. 288, second para, EC) (see paras 60-66)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Expenses incurred by a tenderer – Right to compensation – None – Exception – Infringement of Community law (see paras 81-82)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2006 in Case T‑226/01 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission , by which that Court dismissed the action for compensation for the alleged loss caused by Commission Decisions C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and C(96)2208 of 6 September 1996, adopted within the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Oral procedure – Reopening

(Art. 222, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 61)

2. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Member States – Agreements predating the EC Treaty

(Arts 57(2) EC, 59 EC, 60(1) EC and 307, second para., EC)

Summary

1. Under the second paragraph of Article 222 EC, it is the Advocate General’s duty, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice, require his involvement. Since the Court is not bound either by the Advocate General’s Opinion or by the reasoning on which it is based, it is not absolutely necessary to reopen the oral procedure, under Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure, each time the Advocate General raises a point of law which was not the subject of debate between the parties as long as the judgment is not based on arguments which were not the subject of debate between them.

(see paras 14-15)

2. A Member State which does not take appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in an investment agreement it has entered into with a third country fails to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC.

The provisions of Articles 57(2) EC, 59 EC and 60(1) EC confer on the Council the power to restrict, in certain specific circumstances, movements of capital and payments between Member States and third countries. In order to ensure the effectiveness of those provisions, measures restricting the free movement of capital must be capable, where adopted by the Council, of being applied immediately with regard to the States to which they relate, which may include the third countries which have signed an investment agreement. Accordingly, those powers of the Council, which consist in the unilateral adoption of restrictive measures with regard to third countries on a matter which is identical to or connected with that covered by an earlier agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country, reveal an incompatibility with that agreement where, first, the agreement does not contain a provision allowing the Member State concerned to exercise its rights and to fulfil its obligations as a member of the Community and, second, there is also no international-law mechanism which makes that possible.

The periods of time necessarily involved in any international negotiations which would be required in order to reopen discussion of the agreement at issue are inherently incompatible with the practical effectiveness of those measures. The possibility of relying on other mechanisms offered by international law, such as suspension of the agreement, or even denunciation of the agreement at issue or of some of its provisions, is too uncertain in its effects to guarantee that the measures adopted by the Council could be applied effectively.

(see paras 35-37, 39-40, 45)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 – Commission v Sweden

(Case C-156/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/87/EC – Credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate – Supplementary supervision – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2007 – Commission v Slovakia

(Case C‑114/06)

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 96/48/EC – Trans-European networks – Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system – Failure to transpose

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court –Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans‑European high-speed rail system (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 – Commission v Finland

(Case C-159/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/42/EC –Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Failure to implement within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on internal order – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement within the prescribed period, with regard to the autonomous province of Åland, Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Operative part

The Court

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Republic of Finland has failed, with regard to the autonomous region of the Åland islands, to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Declares that, by requiring holders of professional qualifications in architecture conferred by other Member States to sit an entrance exam for the Portuguese Institute of Architects if they were not enrolled in the institute of architects in another Member State, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 May 2001;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 – Commission v France

(Case C‑388/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/96/EC – Restructuring of the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity – Failure to implement within the period prescribed

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC ) (see para. 8)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on the internal order – Unlawful (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

Operative part:

By failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑321/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/14/EC – Informing and consulting employees – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;