ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Additives in animal feedingstuffs – Directive 70/524 – Vitamin content – National legislation prohibiting the marketing of a supplementary feedingstuff manufactured in accordance with the general rule but the vitamin D content of which exceeds that authorised in the Member State concerned – Not permissible

(Council Directive 70/524, Arts 12(1) and (2) and 19)

Summary

Article 12(1) of Directive 70/524 concerning additives in feedingstuffs provides, as a general rule, that supplementary feedingstuffs may not, in view of their specified dilution, contain levels of additives which exceed those fixed for complete feedingstuffs, although the derogation contained in Article 12(2) of that directive authorises Member States, in certain cases, to allow the vitamin D levels of supplementary feedingstuffs to exceed the maximum levels laid down for complete feedingstuffs. Under Article 19 of the directive, Member States are required to ensure that animal feedingstuffs which conform to that directive are subject only to the marketing restrictions provided for therein.

In that connection, neither the wording of the first subparagraph of Article 12(2) of the directive nor the contextual elements or purpose of that provision allow it to be established that recourse by a Member State to the possibility of laying down rules made available by that provision authorises that Member State to prohibit the importation of a supplementary feedingstuff which has been placed on the market in another Member State pursuant to Article 12(1) of the directive.

It follows that the combined provisions of Articles 12 and 19 of Directive 70/524 must be interpreted as precluding a measure by which a Member State prohibits the marketing within its territory of a supplementary animal feedingstuff, lawfully manufactured in another Member State in accordance with Article 12(1) of that directive, on grounds of its vitamin D content.

(see paras 33, 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Signs capable of constituting a trade mark – Colours or combinations of colours – Conditions – Requirement for the competent authority to examine the other conditions for registration – Scope of the examination

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 2 and 3)

Summary

Colours or combinations of colours which are the subject of an application for registration as a trade mark, claimed in the abstract, without contours, and in shades which are named in words by reference to a colour sample and specified according to an internationally recognised colour classification system may constitute a trade mark for the purposes of Article 2 of the First Trade Marks Directive 89/104 where:

– it has been established that, in the context in which they are used, those colours or combinations of colours in fact represent a sign, and

– the application for registration includes a systematic arrangement associating the colours concerned in a predetermined and uniform way, as the mere juxtaposition of two or more colours, without shape or contours, or a reference to two or more colours ‘in every conceivable form’ does not exhibit the qualities of precision and uniformity required by Article 2 of the directive, and/or

– the colours or combinations of colours in question are capable of conveying precise information, particularly as regards the origin of a product or service.

Even if a combination of colours satisfies the requirements for constituting a trade mark for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, it is still necessary for the competent authority for registering trade marks to decide whether the combination claimed fulfils the other requirements laid down, particularly in Article 3 of the directive, for registration as a trade mark in relation to the goods or services of the undertaking which has applied for its registration. Such an examination must take account of all the relevant circumstances of the case, including any use which has been made of the sign in respect of which trade mark registration is sought. That examination must also take account of the public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for other traders who market goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

(see paras 34, 37, 42, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Exercise of the right to deduct – Relevant tax period – Period in which the conditions connected with both delivery of the goods or provision of the services and possession of the invoice are satisfied

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17(2)(a) and 18(2), first subpara.)

Summary

For the deduction referred to in Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, the first subparagraph of Article 18(2) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct must be exercised in respect of the tax period in which the two conditions required by that provision are satisfied, namely that the goods have been delivered or the services performed and that the taxable person holds the invoice or the document which, under the criteria determined by the Member State in question, may be considered to serve as an invoice.

(see para. 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – National legislation imposing tax on applications for new securities and the physical delivery of new bearer securities – Not permissible

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 11)

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303 which provides, among other things, that Member States must not subject to any form of taxation the creation, issue, admission to quotation on a stock exchange, making available on the market or dealing in stocks, shares or other securities of the same type

- which imposes a tax on stock exchange transactions on applications made in that Member State for new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue, and

- which imposes a tax on the delivery of bearer securities on the physical delivery of bearer securities relating to its national or foreign government stocks, in the case of new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue,

While it is true that that provision does not expressly mention the first acquisition or the initial delivery of the securities referred to, the fact remains that to permit the levying of tax or duty on the initial acquisition of a newly issued security or on the physical delivery of a bearer security occurring as part of its issue, amounts in reality to taxing the very issue of that security as those transactions form an integral part of an overall transaction with regard to the raising of capital.

(see paras 32, 46-47, 53, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Urban waste water treatment – Directive 91/271 – Identification of areas sensitive to eutrophication – Eutrophication – Definition

(Council Directive 91/271, Arts 2(11) and 5(1))

2. Environment – Urban waster water treatment – Directive 91/271 – More stringent treatment of discharge of the urban waste water from large agglomerations – Implications

(Council Directive 91/271, Art. 5(2) and (3), Annexes I.B(3) and II.A(a), second para.)

Summary

1. By virtue of Article 5(1) of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste water treatment, the Member States are obliged to identify the areas where discharges of urban waste water contribute significantly to eutrophication or the risk of eutrophication.

The definition of eutrophication in Article 2(11) of that directive must be interpreted in the light of its objective, which goes beyond the mere protection of aquatic ecosystems and attempts to conserve man, fauna, flora, soil, water, air and landscapes from any significant harmful effects of the accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life resulting from discharges of urban waste water.

For there to be eutrophication within the meaning of the directive, there must be a cause and effect relationship between enrichment by nutrients and the accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life on the one hand and, on the other hand, between the accelerated growth and an undesirable disturbance of the balance of organisms present in the water and to the quality of the water concerned. Species changes involving loss of ecosystem biodiversity, nuisances due to the proliferation of opportunistic macroalgae and severe outbreaks of toxic or harmful phytoplankton constitute an undesirable disturbance of the balance of organisms present in the water. As regards deterioration of water quality, that criterion refers not only to deterioration of the quality of the water which produces harmful effects for ecosystems but also deterioration of the colour, appearance, taste or odour of the water or any other change which prevents or limits water uses.

(see paras 16, 19, 23-25)

2. Under Article 5(3), in conjunction with Annex I.B(3), of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste water treatment, the treatment provided for in Article 5(2) of that directive is more stringent than that described in Article 4 of that directive and covers urban waste water entering collecting systems and from agglomerations of more than 10 000 ‘population equivalent’ (p.e.). That treatment means, inter alia, that discharges into areas sensitive to eutrophication must satisfy the requirements shown in Table 2 of that Annex, subject, however, to the provisions of the second paragraph of Annex II.A(a) to that directive, which provide that, as regards large agglomerations, the removal of phosphorus and/or nitrogen should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication.

(see paras 104-105)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid – Concept – Measure reducing the charges of an undertaking

(Art. 87(1) EC)

2. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of legality in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted

(Art. 87 EC)

Summary

1. Article 87(1) EC defines State aid which is governed by the Treaty as aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.

The concept of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC is wider than that of a subsidy because it embraces not only positive benefits, such as the subsidies themselves, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the normal burdens on the budget of an undertaking.

(see para. 24)

2. The legality of a decision concerning State aid is to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted.

(see para. 31)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste – Shipments of waste for recovery – Incorrect classification of a planned shipment by the notifier – Not competent for the authority of dispatch to reclassify that shipment on its own initiative and to refuse to transmit the consignment note – Duty of that authority to inform the notifier of its objections to that classification

(Council Regulation No 259/93 Arts 6(8) and 7(2))

Summary

Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Decisions 98/368 and 1999/816, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has recourse, under Article 6(8) of that regulation, to the specific procedure whereby the competent authority of dispatch may transmit the consignment note for a shipment of waste for recovery itself, instead of the notifier, to the competent authority of destination, that competent authority of dispatch, if it considers it necessary to object to the shipment on the ground that it has been incorrectly classified by the notifier, may not reclassify the shipment on its own initiative. It is required to transmit that document to the other competent authorities and to the consignee and to inform the notifier and the other competent authorities concerned of its objection by any appropriate means before the end of the period laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation at the latest.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Action for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Meaning

2. Appeal – Grounds of appeal – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Excluded except in cases of distortion

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

3. Appeal – Grounds of appeal – Plea in law submitted for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

Summary

1. A measure is only vitiated by misuse of powers if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated.

(see para. 44)

2. The assessment of the facts does not, unless the clear sense of the evidence produced before the Court of First Instance was distorted, constitute a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice in an appeal.

(see para. 46)

3. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the Court, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal, the Court’s jurisdiction is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

(see para. 60)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions laid down by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the letting of immovable property – Meaning – Letting of water‑ and land‑based mooring berths for boats

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions laid down by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the letting of immovable property – Exception concerning sites for parking vehicles – Meaning of vehicles – All means of transport, including boats

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b), point 2)

Summary

1. Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of letting of immovable property includes the letting of both water-based mooring berths for boats and land sites for storage of boats on port land.

As regards, more particularly, the former, a mooring berth in a port basin fulfils the definition of immovable property within the meaning of the provision concerned, since the letting does not concern a particular quantity of water, but a specific part of the port basin which is clearly delimited and cannot be moved.

(see paras 34-36, operative part 1)

2. Article 13B(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 92/111, which excludes the letting of premises and sites for parking vehicles from the exemption from value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term of ‘vehicles’ used in that provision includes all means of transport, including boats.

(see paras 44, 46-47, operative part 2)
Case C-83/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Hellenic Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Waste management – Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 6 March 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 5 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-63/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement Directive 98/83/EC)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 15 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court)

30 September 2003

((Approximation of laws – Protection of plant health – Directive 77/93/EEC – Import into the Community of plants originating in non-member countries and subject to special requirements – Special requirements which cannot be fulfilled at places other than that of origin – Affixing of an appropriate origin mark to plant packaging – Official statement that plants originate in an area known to be free from the relevant harmful organism))

and

THE COURT (Full Court),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others, Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd, the United Kingdom Government, the Greek Government and the Commission, at the hearing on 8 April 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 June 2003,
Case C-74/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Federal Republic of Germany





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 1999/94/EC – Failure to implement within the prescribed period)»

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 25 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

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 by the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Commission's right of action – Right exercised at the Commission's discretion

(Art. 226 EC)

3.. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-58/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 98/84/EC – Information society – Radio broadcasting – Services based on conditional access – Services consisting of conditional access – Protected services – Legal protection – Devices giving unauthorised access)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 10 July 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-154/02





Criminal proceedings

against

Jan Nilsson





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hässleholms tingsrätt (Sweden))

«(International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – CITES – Regulation (EC) No 338/97 – Articles 2(w) and 8(3) – Definition of worked specimen – Stuffed animal – Definition of specimen acquired more than 50 years previously – Manner of acquisition – Exemption – Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 – Articles 29 and 32)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 15 May 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 23 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Environment – International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – Regulation No 338/97 – Exemptions from prohibitions on commercial activities – Worked specimens – Definition – Stuffed animals – Covered

(Council Regulation No 338/97, Arts 2(w) and 8(3)(b))

2.. Environment – International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – Regulation No 338/97 – Interpretation in the light of the Washington Convention

(Council Regulation No 338/97)

3.. Environment – International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – Regulation No 338/97 – Exemptions from prohibitions on commercial activities – Worked specimens acquired more than 50 years previously – Definition of acquisition – Scope – Specimens first acquired more than 50 years previously but then the subject of a new acquisition – Covered

(Council Regulation No 338/97, Art. 8(3)(b))

4.. Environment – International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – Regulation No 338/97 – Exemptions from prohibitions on commercial activities – Worked specimens acquired more than 50 years previously – Finding by the management authority of the Member State – Requirement

(Council Regulation No 338/97, Art. 8(3)(b); Commission Regulation No 1808/2001, Art. 32, second para.)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-9/02

Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant

v

Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

(Freedom of establishment – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Tax legislation – Transfer of tax residence to another Member State – Methods of taxing increased value of securities)

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Taxation of unrealised capital gains where tax residence transferred to another Member State – Not permissible – Justification – None

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

The principle of freedom of establishment laid down by Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing, in order to prevent a risk of tax avoidance, a mechanism for taxing latent, i.e. not yet realised, increases in value of company shares, where a taxpayer transfers his tax residence outside that State.

A taxpayer wishing to transfer his tax residence in exercise of the right guaranteed to him by that provision is subjected to disadvantageous treatment in comparison with a person who maintains his residence in that State where he becomes liable, simply by reason of such a transfer, to tax on income which has not yet been realised and which he therefore does not have, whereas, if he remained in that State, increases in value would become taxable only when, and to the extent that, they were actually realised.

That difference in treatment cannot be justified by the aim of preventing tax avoidance, since tax avoidance or evasion cannot be inferred generally from the fact that the tax residence of a physical person has been transferred to another Member State.

(see paras 38, 46, 50-51, 58, 69, operative part)