ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Power of the Member States to organise their social security systems

(Council Regulation No 1408/71)

Summary

Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 307/1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State whose social legislation is alone applicable to a resident self‑employed worker, from excluding from the tax base for contributions such as the General Social Contribution and the Social Debt Repayment Contribution income earned by the worker in another Member State, by application, in particular, of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.

(see para. 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Taxation of companies – Deduction of losses

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC) and Art. 58 (now Art. 48 EC))

Summary

It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State. It is also contrary to those provisions for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any tax-free profits.

Such a tax system increases the economic risks incurred by a company established in one Member State wishing to set up a body in another Member State where the currency used is different from that of the State of origin and thereby constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment. It is not justified by the need to maintain the cohesion of the tax system since there is no direct relationship between the currency losses, on one hand, and currency gains, on the other. Furthermore, that obstacle cannot be justified by the existence of a double taxation convention. It is true that freedom of establishment cannot be understood as meaning that a Member State is required to draw up its tax rules on the basis of those in another Member State in order to ensure, in all circumstances, taxation which removes any disparities arising from national tax rules, given that the decisions made by a company as to the establishment of commercial structures abroad may be to the company’s advantage or not, according to circumstances. However, the tax disadvantage concerned relates to a specific operational factor which is capable of being taken into consideration only by the tax authorities of the principal undertaking.

A limit on the setting-off of currency losses suffered by that permanent establishment according to its results cannot be justified by the argument that the undertaking which owns that establishment would be likely to benefit from a double advantage from the currency loss. A Member State which has waived its tax powers by concluding a double taxation convention cannot rely on the lack of tax powers with respect to the results of a permanent establishment which belongs to a company established in the territory of that State in order to justify the refusal to deduct expenditure incurred by that company which, by its nature, cannot be taken into account in the Member State where that establishment is situated.

(see paras 30, 32, 40, 43-45, 47, 50-51, 53, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy

–

Protection of the safety and health of workers

–

Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (Council Directive 89/391, Arts 9(1)(c), 10(1) and (3)(b), 13(2)(a), (c), (e) and (f)) (see paras 44-46, 48-54, 58

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Combating late payments in commercial transactions – Directive 2000/35

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 3(2))

Summary

Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial transactions governs the possibility afforded to Member States of fixing, in certain limited cases and under certain conditions, a statutory period exceeding the 30-day period applicable in the absence of a contractual clause on the date or the period of payment. In other words, only where the parties are silent on the matter does the situation fall within the scope of Article 3(2) of that directive.

National legislation, which specifically requires, if the payment period is to be extended to a maximum of 90 days, the making of an ‘express agreement’ to that effect cannot therefore be regarded as subject to the conditions laid down by that provision.

(see paras 19, 22-25)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Derogations from common rules – Restrictive interpretation – Protection of the essential interests of a Member State’s security

(Art. 296(1)(b) EC; Council Directive 93/36, Arts 2(1)(b), 3, 6 and 9)

Summary

A Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, and in particular under Articles 2(1)(b), 6 and 9 thereof, where it has adopted national legislation authorising a derogation from the Community rules on public supply contracts in respect of the purchase of light helicopters for the use of police forces and the national fire service, without any of the conditions capable of justifying that derogation having been satisfied.

As regards the legitimate requirements of national interest foreseen by Article 296(1)(b) EC, any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security and which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war materials, provided, however, that such measures do not alter the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.

It is clear from the wording of that provision that the products in question must be intended for specifically military purposes. It follows that the purchase of equipment, the use of which for military purposes is hardly certain, must necessarily comply with the rules governing the award of public contracts. Since it is not disputed that the national legislation applies to helicopters which are clearly for civilian use whereas their military use is only potential, Article 296(1)(b) EC, to which Article 3 of Directive 93/36 refers, cannot properly be invoked by the Member State concerned to justify national legislation authorising recourse to the negotiated procedure for the purchase of those helicopters.

Furthermore, resort to Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36 in respect of the purchase of the helicopters in question appears disproportionate as regards the objective of preventing the disclosure of sensitive information relating to their production in so far as the Member State concerned has not shown that such an objective was unattainable within a competitive tendering procedure such as that specified by that directive. It follows that the mere fact of stating that the supplies at issue are declared secret, that they are accompanied by special security measures or that it is necessary to exclude them from the Community rules in order to protect the essential interests of State security cannot suffice to prove that the exceptional circumstances justifying the derogations provided for in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36 actually exist.

(see paras 25-28, 31-34, operative part 1)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C-54/06)

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 transpose 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. 7)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National legal system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the 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 (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the 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 Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑223/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/51/EC – Company law – Annual accounts of certain types of companies – Failure to implement 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. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings (OJ 2003 L 178, p. 16).

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 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 – Commission v Finland

(Case C-154/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Waste electrical and electronic equipment – Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 6-7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 106).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, in respect of the Åland Islands, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑375/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2003/105/EC – Protection of workers – Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances – 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. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2 of Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major‑accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 14 June 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑82/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Environment – Waste – Hazardous waste – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Obligation to draw up and communicate waste management plans

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 14)

2. Acts of the Community institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC; Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directives 91/156, and 91/689) (see paras 19, 34-35, 37-39)

3. 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. 25)

4. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 26)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 47), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) – Obligation to communicate waste management plans.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to draw up:

– a waste management plan in accordance with Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, for the Province of Rimini;

– waste management plans including suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste in accordance with the fourth indent of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, for the Region of Lazio;

– waste management plans in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste for the Regions of Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Puglia, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano Alto-Adige and the Province of Rimini,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑274/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 56 EC – National provision limiting the voting rights of shareholders in undertakings in the energy sector – Limitation applicable to public bodies

Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Company law – National legislation limiting the voting rights attaching to shares held by public bodies in national undertakings in the energy sector (Arts 56 EC and 58(1)(b) EC) (see paras 27, 53-54 and operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 56 EC – National provision which provides, in certain cases, for the limitation of voting rights in undertakings in the energy sector.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force measures such as those laid down in Supplementary Provision No 27 to Law 55/1999 of 29 December 1999 on fiscal, administrative and social measures, in the version of that provision laid down in Article 94 of Law 62/2003 of 30 December 2003, which limits the voting rights of shares held by public bodies in Spanish undertakings operating in the energy sector, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 58).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by not having adopted the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).

The Court:

1.

Operative part

Operative part

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Regulatory framework – Directive 2002/21

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, recital 11 and Arts 3(2) and (4) and 10(1))

2. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Regulatory framework – Directive 2002/21

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, recital 11 and Arts 3(2), (4) and (6) and 10(1))

Summary

1. Articles 3(2), 3(4) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, read in conjunction with recital 11 in the preamble to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the assignment of the national numbering resources and the management of the national numbering plans must be regarded as regulatory functions. Member States are not required to allocate those different functions to separate regulatory authorities.

(see para. 21, operative part 1)

2. Article 10(1) and Article 3(2), (4) and (6) of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted as not precluding the functions of assigning national numbering resources or of managing national numbering plans from being shared by a number of independent regulatory authorities, provided that the allocation of the tasks is made public and easily accessible, and notified to the Commission.

(see para. 27, operative part 2)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Angelidis v Parliament

(Case C-103/07 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Staff report — Single assessor — Conditions — Consultation of previous immediate superior — Lack of change in post — Reasoning — Annulment — Damages’

1. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Drawing up — System put in place by the Parliament (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43) (see paras 35, 37, 38, 40)

2. 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 45, 46)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament, in which that Court rejected the applicant’s application, first, for the annulment of his staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001 and, second, for compensation for the harm he suffered by reason both of alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late drawing up.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;