ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-19/03

Verbraucher-Zentrale Hamburg eV

v

O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I)

(Economic and monetary policy – Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 – Introduction of the euro – Conversion of national currency units to the euro unit – Rounding of monetary amounts to be paid or accounted for after conversion – Contract concluded in the telecommunications sector – Meaning of ‘monetary amounts to be paid or accounted for’ – Per-minute tariffs for telephone calls)

Summary of the Judgment

Economic and monetary policy – Introduction of the euro – Regulation No 1103/97 – Rule prescribing the rounding of monetary amounts to be paid or accounted for after conversion – Application to a telephone tariff – Excluded – Rounding of the tariff applied by a national operator – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1103/97, Art. 5)

Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro, first, was intended to ensure compliance with the principle of continuity of contract, so that the transition to the euro took place without affecting obligations already entered into by citizens and firms, and, secondly, shares the objective that the transition to the euro should be neutral. It sets only minimum rules in relation to the rounding of certain amounts and leaves it to national authorities to maintain or adopt rules which are more conducive to achieving that objective.

It follows that the first sentence of Article 5 of that regulation, prescribing the rounding up or down to the nearest cent of monetary amounts to be paid or accounted for must not be broadly interpreted. It therefore does not cover a tariff fixed by a national operator such as the per-minute price (of a telephone call, consisting of an amount which is not actually invoiced to, or paid by, the consumer and it is not entered as such in any accounting document or statement of account. In that respect, the fact that the tariff relates to a particular multiple of the unit on the basis of which the final amount of the invoice is calculated or that for the consumer the tariff represents the decisive factor as regards the price of the goods or services does not affect that finding.

Nevertheless, the same regulation does not preclude the rounding to the nearest cent of amounts (such as that tariff), provided that that rounding practice is consistent with the principle of continuity of contract and with the objective that the transition to the euro should be neutral; in other words, provided that the practice does not affect contractual obligations entered into by economic agents, including consumers, and that it does not have a real impact on the price actually to be paid.

(see paras 31-32, 34, 36, 40-43, 57, operative part 1-2)
Case C-400/03

Waterman SAS, formerly Waterman SA

v

Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris)

(Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff heading – Pen cases)

Summary of the Judgment

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature – Subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19 – Not invalid





The Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature are a valid aid to the interpretation of the tariff provided that their content is in accordance with the actual provisions of the common customs tariff and do not alter the meaning of its provisions. Such is the case with the Explanatory Notes to subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19. They are contrary neither to the terms of the headings and subheadings at issue nor to the applicable notes nor to the rule mentioned in paragraph 6 of the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, according to which the classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of subheadings. In particular, those Explanatory Notes are an extension of Additional Note 1 to Chapter 42 of the Combined Nomenclature, in that they specify that where the outer layer visible to the naked eye is sheeting of plastic, the process by which that sheeting was obtained is irrelevant for the purposes of tariff classification. In addition, in considering equivalent two technical processes which result in an identical product, namely an outer surface of plastic, they comply with the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods which lies in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the relevant heading of the Common Customs Tariff and in the notes to the relevant sections or chapters. It follows that there is no information such as to affect the validity of the Explanatory Notes in question.

(see paras 16, 19, 21, 27, 29, 32, operative part)
Case C-398/03

Criminal proceedings

against

E. Gavrielides Oy

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

(Directive 90/642/EEC – Maximum levels for pesticide residues – Vine leaves)

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Pesticide residues on and in products of plant origin – Directive 90/642 – Whether applicable to a product not mentioned in the annexes to the directive – Condition – Prior scientific assessment – Directive not applicable to vine leaves on account of the absence of a scientific study

(Council Directive 90/642)

The fact that a product is not mentioned in the annexes to Directive 90/642 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, does not, of itself, preclude the latter’s application to that product. In that regard, it is necessary to consider whether, in the context of the rules on maximum pesticide residue levels, the product in question can be included with a product or a group of products expressly referred to by Directive 90/642. Such an examination requires account to be taken of the general objective of that directive, which consists in reconciling the need effectively to protect plants and plant products from harmful organisms and weeds, in order to safeguard the yield from crop production and agricultural productivity in the Community, with the need to protect human or animal health as well as the environment against the harmful effects of pesticides.

The inclusion of a product not mentioned in the annexes to Directive 90/642 in a group or sub-group of products listed there presupposes, therefore, that that product has previously been the subject of a scientific assessment which balances the two requirements arising from the general objective of that directive and which demonstrates, in respect of those two requirements, that it is permissible to apply to the product concerned the maximum levels for pesticide residues fixed for the group or sub-group of products in which it is envisaged to include it.

It follows that Directive 90/642 is not applicable to vine leaves, which are not among the products mentioned in the annexes to the directive, since the beneficial and detrimental effects of pesticides on them have not been the subject of any scientific study to date.

(see paras 22-24, 26)
Case C-8/03

Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA (BBL)

v

État belge

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 4 and 9(2)(e) – Concept of taxable person – Place where services are supplied – SICAV)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Economic activity within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive – Collective investment in transferable securities of capital raised from the public – Included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(2))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons – Definition – Open-ended investment companies (SICAVs) which have as their sole object the collective investment in transferable securities of capital raised from the public – Included – Place where services are provided to such bodies established in a Member State other than that of the supplier of the services – Place where the bodies have established their business

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 4 and 9(2)(e))

1. The activity consisting in the collective investment in transferable securities of capital raised from the public, for a fee, which goes beyond the compass of the simple acquisition and the mere sale of securities and which aims to produce income on a continuing basis, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

(see paras 42-43)

2. Open-ended investment companies (SICAVs) which have as their sole object the collective investment in transferable securities of capital raised from the public in accordance with Directive 85/611 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) are taxable persons within the meaning of Article 4 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes so that, where services referred to in Article 9(2)(e) of that directive are supplied to such SICAVs which are established in a Member State other than that of the supplier of the services, the place where those services are provided is the place where the SICAVs have established their business.

(see para. 48, operative part)
Case C-296/03

Glaxosmithkline SA

v

État belge

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Counseil d’État (Belgium))

(Directive 89/105/EEC – Medicinal products for human use – Application for entry on a positive list – Nature of the time-limit for responding – Mandatory nature – Consequences of exceeding the time-limit where a decision refusing entry is annulled)

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 30 September 2004

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 20 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Pharmaceutical products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use – Application for entry of a medicinal product on the list of medicinal products covered by the national sickness insurance scheme – Mandatory nature of the time-limit for determining the application – Annulment of the decision determining the application – Adoption of a new decision – Whether permissible – Conditions – Observance of the time-limit for determining the application

(Council Directive 89/105, Art. 6(1), first subpara.)

The time-limit for determining an application for entry of a medicinal product on the list of medicinal products covered by the national sickness insurance scheme which is laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is a mandatory time-limit which the national authorities are not entitled to exceed.

It is for the Member States to determine whether the fact that that time-limit is exceeded precludes the competent authorities from formally adopting a new decision when the previous decision has been annulled in court proceedings, although such a possibility can be exercised only within a reasonable time which may not in any event exceed the time-limit laid down in that article.

(see paras 30, 39, operative part 1-2)
Case C-22/03

Optiver BV and Others

v

Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam)

(Directive 69/335/EEC – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Duty on the gross profits of securities intermediaries)

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 9 November 2004

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 10 March 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Scope – Duty levied on securities intermediaries on the gross profits from activities related to those securities – Not included

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 4, 10 and 11)

Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the levying on securities intermediaries of a duty on the gross profits from activities related to those securities, as such a duty does not fall within the scope of the directive.

First, the event giving rise to the duty is not the carrying-out of a specific transaction such as those referred to in Articles 4, 10 and 11 of the directive but the exercise of a wide range of activities in connection with securities in general.

Second, as the taxable base is made up of the gross profits made by the securities intermediaries in the exercise of various activities, the duty is more in the nature of a direct tax on income and therefore falls within a category of taxes not covered by Directive 69/335.

(see paras 31-35, operative part)
Case C-160/03

Kingdom of Spain

v

Eurojust

(Action for annulment under Article 230 EC – Action brought by a Member State challenging calls for applications, issued by Eurojust, for positions as members of the temporary staff – No jurisdiction of the Court – Inadmissible)

Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 16 December 2004

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 15 March 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice for the applicant and not the Community judicature – Admissibility assessed in the light of the applicant’s choice

2. Actions for annulment – Challengeable acts – Action brought by a Member State against a call for applications, issued by Eurojust, for positions as members of the temporary staff – Excluded – Requirement for judicial review – Rules

(Article 230 EC; Article 35 EU, 41 EU, 46(b) EU; Statute of the Court, Arts 40 and 56; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91; Council Decision 2002/187, Art. 30)

1. In judicial proceedings, it is for the applicant to choose the legal basis of its action and not for the Community judicature itself to choose the most appropriate legal basis. It follows that, where the applicant brings its action under a particular provision, while leaving to the discretion of the Court the choice of the most appropriate legal basis to examine that action, the admissibility of that action must be examined in the light of that provision.

(see para. 35)

2. A call for applications, issued by Eurojust, for positions as members of the temporary staff is not capable of being the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC. Such a call is not included in the list of acts the legality of which the Court may review under that article. Moreover, Article 41 EU does not provide that Article 230 EC is to apply to the provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in Title VI of the EU Treaty, the jurisdiction of the Court in such matters being defined in Article 35 EU, to which Article 46(b) EU refers.

Such a call for applications is not, however, exempt from judicial review, for, as is clear from Article 30 of Decision 2002/187, setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, Eurojust staff are to be subject to the rules and regulations applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities. It follows that the main parties concerned, namely the candidates for the various positions in the contested calls for applications, have access to the Community Courts under the conditions laid down in Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. In the event of such an action, Member States would be entitled to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and could, where appropriate, as is clear from the second and third paragraphs of Article 56 of that Statute, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

(see paras 36-38, 40-43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Preparatory practical training – Reimbursement of travel expenses limited to the domestic stretch of the journey – Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 48 (now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC))

Summary

Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) precludes a national measure which grants a person who has completed a practical training period for certain jobs under conditions of genuine and effective activity as an employed person in a Member State other than his Member State of origin the right to reimbursement of travel expenses only up to the amount incurred in respect of the domestic stretch of the journey, while providing that, if such an activity were carried out on national territory, all the travel costs would be reimbursed.

(see para. 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Copyright and neighbouring rights — Directive 93/83 — Satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission — Use by a broadcasting company transmitting from the territory of one Member State of a transmitter situated on the territory of another Member State — Royalty for phonogram use governed by the law of both States — Whether permissible

(Council Directive 93/83)

2. Approximation of laws — Copyright and neighbouring rights — Rental right and lending right in respect of protected works — Directive 92/100 — Use by a broadcasting company transmitting from the territory of one Member State of a transmitter situated on the territory of another Member State — Royalty for phonogram use — Right of a broadcasting company to deduct from the royalty paid in the State in which the terrestrial transmitter is located — None

(Council Directive 92/100, Art. 8(2))

Summary

1. Where a broadcasting company transmitting from the territory of one Member State uses, in order to extend the transmission of its programmes to a part of its national audience, a transmitter situated nearby on the territory of another Member State, Directive 93/83 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission does not preclude the fee for phonogram use being governed not only by the law of the Member State in whose territory the broadcasting company is established but also by the legislation of the Member State in which, for technical reasons, the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located.

(see para. 44, operative part 1)

2. Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that, for determination of the equitable remuneration mentioned in that provision, the broadcasting company is not entitled unilaterally to deduct from the amount of the royalty for phonogram use payable in the Member State in which it is established the amount of the royalty paid or claimed in the Member State in whose territory the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located.

(see para. 55, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations — Conditions — Lack of any other satisfactory solution — Condition not met in the case of unnecessary coincidence with periods of particular protection provided for by the directive

(Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7(4) and 9(1)(c))

Summary

Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds permits authorisation, in compliance with the conditions set out in that provision, for the hunting of species listed in Annex II to that directive during the periods referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive. The conditions which must be met for such a hunt to be authorised include the lack of any other satisfactory solution. That condition cannot be considered to have been satisfied when the hunting period under a derogation coincides, without need, with periods in which the directive aims to provide particular protection. There would be no such need if the sole purpose of the derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting periods for certain species of birds in territories which they already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in accordance with Article 7 of the Directive.

(see paras 17-19)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedure for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Scope – Contracting authority with a holding, together with one or more private undertakings, in the capital of a company legally distinct from it – Contract concluded by the contracting authority with the company – Included – Specific circumstances – Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Directive 92/50, Arts 8, 11(1), and 15(2))

Summary

A Member State which permits the award by a municipality of a public service contract for waste disposal to a company which is legally distinct from that municipality and 49% owned by a private undertaking without complying with the procedural and advertising rules laid down by Article 8, in conjunction with Articles 11(1) and 15(2), of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Where a contracting authority intends to conclude a contract for pecuniary interest relating to services within the material scope of Directive 92/50 with a company legally distinct from it, in whose capital it has a holding together with one or more private undertakings, the public award procedures laid down by that directive must always be applied.

(see paras 31, 46, 49-50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations – Directive 91/338 – Prohibition against marketing products with a cadmium content in excess of the authorised maximum amount – Application to toys covered by Directive 88/378 – Whether permissible

(Council Directives 91/338, Art. 1, and 88/378)

Summary

The second sentence of Article 1 of Directive 91/338 amending for the 10th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the prohibition in that Directive of the marketing of products with a cadmium content in excess of an authorised maximum amount from applying to toys covered by Directive 88/378 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys.

(see para. 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

The Court has jurisdiction to interpret a Community directive only as regards its application in a new Member State with effect from the date of that State’s accession to the European Union.

The Court does not therefore have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by a Hungarian court concerning the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts where the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings occurred prior to the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union.

(see paras 36-38)