ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supply of services – Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes – Supply of services connected with immovable property

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 9(2)(a))

Summary

Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is to be interpreted as meaning that the place where services are supplied by an association whose business consists in organising the exchange between its members of their timeshare usage rights in holiday accommodation, in return for which that association receives from its members enrolment, annual subscription and exchange fees, is the place where the property in respect of which the member concerned holds timeshare usage rights is situated.

It is difficult to establish the relationship between the association organising the exchange and its members without taking account of the purpose of that relationship. Furthermore, timeshare usage rights are rights in immovable property and their transfer in exchange for the enjoyment of similar rights constitutes a transaction connected with immovable property. An owner who wishes to exchange his timeshare usage right with that of another member enters into direct contact, not with the other member, but with the association which organises the exchange. What distinguishes that system from a simple rental from any travel agency is the fact that, under such a system, the person concerned pays not for the supply of a holiday, but for the service provided by that association in order to facilitate the exchange of his right relating to a particular property. It follows that the property with which the association’s services are connected is the property in which the owner who wishes to exchange has a right. Furthermore, the underlying logic of the provisions concerning the place where a service is supplied in Article 9 of the Sixth Directive requires that goods and services are taxed as far as possible in the place of consumption. In the context of the organisation of the exchange of timeshare usage rights in holiday accommodation, the services supplied are not consumed in the place where the association is established, but in the place where the immovable property in respect of which timeshare usage rights are exchanged is situated. As regards the enrolment, annual subscription and exchange fees, that property is the property in respect of which the member concerned has timeshare usage rights that he makes available in the exchange.

(see paras 37-39, 41, 43, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment – Hazardous waste – Directives 91/689 and 2006/12 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Arts 7 and 9; Council Directive 91/689, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 43, 47)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Arts 4 and 5) (see paras 57-58, 72-74, 76)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) and Articles 5(1) and (2), 7(1), 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) (formerly Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991) – Breach of Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) – Failure to draw up a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the Community legislation and to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste – Failure to fulfil obligations so far as concerns the management and landfill of waste.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by failing to draw up and adopt within a reasonable period a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the relevant Community legislation, and by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste characterised by the most appropriate methods in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health,

– by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure, as regards the management of hazardous waste, compliance with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste and Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, read in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and (2) and 7(1) of Directive 2006/12, second, Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689, read in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12, and, third, Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Fisheries

–

Conservation of the resources of the sea

–

Technical conservation measures

–

Restrictions on fishing for plaice (Council Regulations No 2847/93, Art. 2(1), No 850/98, Art. 29(2), and No 2371/2002, Art. 23) (see paras 41-54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy – Fishing for plaice – Inspection and control of fishing vessels and their activities – Responsibility of the Member States.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing fishing vessels to have a higher engine power than permitted under Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 of 26 April 2005;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Economic activities within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2(1), and 4(1), (2) and (5))

Summary

A Member State does not fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and Article 4(1), (2) and (5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes when it fails to levy value added tax on legal advice services provided by public legal aid offices in the context of legal proceedings in return for part payment from the recipient, where the link between the legal aid services and the payment to be made by the recipient is not sufficiently direct for that payment to be regarded as consideration for those services and, accordingly, for those services to be regarded as economic activities subject to value added tax for the purposes of Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive.

As the amount of the part payment made to the public offices by recipients of legal aid services provided in the context of legal proceedings is not calculated solely on the basis of the fees but also depends upon the recipient’s income and assets, there is no such direct link, for that payment depends only in part on the actual value of the services provided – the more modest the recipient’s income and assets, the less strong the link with that value will be. That finding is borne out by the fact that there is a substantial difference between the part payments made in the course of one year by those recipients and the gross operating costs of the legal aid offices, such a difference suggesting that the part payment borne by the recipients must be regarded more as a fee, receipt of which does not, per se, mean that a given activity is economic in nature, than as consideration in the strict sense.

(see paras 48-51)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age

(Council Directive 2000/78, Arts 2(5) and 6(1))

2. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of age – Prohibition – Duty of national courts

Summary

1. Article 2(5) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, setting a maximum age for practising as a panel dentist, in this case 68 years, where the sole aim of that measure is to protect the health of patients against the decline in performance of those dentists after that age, since that age limit does not apply to non-panel dentists.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding such a measure where its aim is to share out employment opportunities among the generations in the profession of panel dentist, if, taking into account the situation in the labour market concerned, the measure is appropriate and necessary for achieving that aim.

It is for the national court to identify the aim pursued by the measure laying down that age limit, by ascertaining the reason for maintaining the measure.

(see para. 78, operative part 1)

2. If national legislation setting a maximum age limit for panel doctors, having regard to its objective, were contrary to Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, it would be for the national court hearing a dispute between an individual and an administrative body to decline to apply that legislation, even if it were prior to that directive and national law made no provision for disapplying it.

(see para. 81, operative part 2)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑70/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/72/EC – Statute for a European Cooperative Society – Involvement of employees in the decision-making of the society – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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 of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Commission v France

(Case C‑330/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/35/EC – Environmental liability – Prevention and remedying of environmental damage – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. 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. 15)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

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 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 – Commission v Finland

(Case C‑144/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 83/182/EEC – Tax exemptions – Temporary import of vehicles – Normal residence

1. 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. 29)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Mere administrative practices insufficient (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 32)

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Tax exemptions for means of transport temporarily imported (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 35)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/112/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59) – Incomplete definition of normal residence for the purpose of determining whether there is an entitlement to an exemption.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence for the purpose of determining whether there is an entitlement to a tax exemption in respect of the temporary import of vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2009 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑390/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Decision No 280/2004/EC – Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol – National measures intended to limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions – Failure to communicate the information required

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. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to communicate, within the prescribed period, the information required by Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57) – Information relating to national projections concerning greenhouse gas emissions and measures adopted to limit and/or reduce such emissions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate, by 15 March 2007, the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
1.

Declares that the Italian Republic has failed, in relation to the refund of value added tax to a taxable person residing in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in the Member State concerned, to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, and Article 1 of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory, by requiring a taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-member State, but having a fixed establishment in Italy and who, during the period at issue, supplied goods and services in Italy, to apply for a refund of input value added tax according to the mechanism provided by those directives rather than deduct it when the purchase in respect of which repayment of that tax is sought is made not through that fixed establishment, but directly by the principal establishment of that taxable person;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑272/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/83/EC – Right of asylum – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 8-9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 19)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need for full transposition into national law – Fact that an activity mentioned by a directive is not carried on in one region of a Member State – No effect – Exception – Reasons of geography – Definition (Art. 249, third para, EC; Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 2(f)) (see paras 23-24)

3. Environment – Waste – Landfill of waste – Directive 1999/31 (Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 2) (see paras 27-33)

4. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose fully into Walloon law Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) – Concept of ‘underground storage’, of ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’ – Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure the transposition with regard to the Walloon Region of Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear the costs.