ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/21) (see paras 9-12

)

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 Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15).

Operative part

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 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 92/57 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites

(Council Directive 92/57, Art. 3(1) and (2))

Summary

Article 3 of Directive 92/57 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391) must be interpreted as follows:

– Article 3(1) precludes national legislation under which, for private works not subject to planning permission on a construction site on which more than one contractor is to be present, it is possible to derogate from the requirement imposed on the client or project supervisor to appoint a coordinator for safety and health matters at the project preparation stage or, in any event, before the works commence;

– Article 3(2) precludes national legislation under which the requirement for the coordinator responsible for the execution stage of the works to draw up a safety and health plan is confined to the situation in which more than one contractor is engaged on a construction site involving private works that are not subject to that obligation and which does not use the particular risks such as those listed in Annex II to the directive as criteria for that requirement.

(see para. 31, 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. 19)

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Conditions – No other satisfactory solution – Conditions not satisfied – Unlawful (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7 and 9) (see paras 22-27)

3. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Conditions – Fixing for a period of five years the number of specimens that may be taken (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7 and 9) (see paras 29-30)

4. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Conditions – Capture in small numbers – Fixing the number of birds that may be hunted at a level clearly higher than the limit fixed by the directive – Unlawful (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7 and 9(1)(c)) (see paras 35-40)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) – Derogations from the system of protection for wild birds – Veneto Region.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds that fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, 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. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits

(Art. 267 TFEU)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Self-employed commercial agents – Directive 86/653

(Council Directive 86/653, Art. 17(2)(a))

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Self-employed commercial agents – Directive 86/653

(Council Directive 86/653, Art. 18(a))

Summary

1. If questions submitted by national courts concern the interpretation of a provision of Union law, the Court remains, in principle, obliged to give a ruling. Neither the wording of Article 267 TFEU nor the aim of the procedure established by that article indicates that the framers of the Treaty intended to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Court requests for a preliminary ruling on a provision of Union law in the particular case in which the domestic law of a Member State makes a renvoi to that provision in order to determine the rules applicable to a situation purely internal to that State. When domestic legislation adopts the same solutions as those adopted in Union law in order, in particular, to avoid discrimination against foreign nationals or any distortion of competition, it is clearly in the interest of the Union that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, provisions or concepts taken from Union law should be interpreted uniformly, irrespective of the circumstances in which they are to apply.

These principles apply too when the legislation transposing the directive interpretation of which is requested does not directly govern the situation in issue but is applied by analogy under the national legislation.

(see paras 10, 24-26)

2. Under the second indent of Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, the commercial agent is to be entitled to an indemnity if and to the extent that the payment of that indemnity is equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The possibility cannot, therefore, be ruled out that that agent’s conduct may be taken into account in the assessment made to determine the fairness of his indemnity.

(see para. 44)

3. Article 18(a) of Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents precludes a self-employed commercial agent from being deprived of his goodwill indemnity when the principal establishes a default by that agent which occurred after notice of termination of the contract was given but before the contract expired and which was such as to justify immediate termination of the contract in question.

(see para. 45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Single payment scheme – Eligibility for set aside – Use of set-aside entitlements

(Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Arts 46, 54(6), 57 and 63(1))

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Single payment scheme – Use of set-aside entitlements

(Commission Regulation No 796/2004, Arts 50(4), and 51)

Summary

1. Article 54(6) of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer may apply for aid under the payment entitlements at his disposal, including in conjunction with areas that are not eligible for set-aside, only if he has first activated all his set-aside entitlements.

It follows from the structure and objectives of Regulation No 1782/2003 that the obligation to claim the set-aside entitlements before any other entitlement, set out in Article 54(6) of that regulation, is absolute in nature, in the sense that it relates to all the area at the disposal of the farmer in question. In order to preserve the effectiveness of that provision, it is essential that set-aside entitlements should be activated before other rights, whether or not these are based on areas eligible for set-aside. Otherwise, the effective setting aside of agricultural land would be jeopardised in so far as a part of the set-aside entitlements would remain unused, either because some farmers had transferred part of the area eligible for set-aside, or because they had received by transfer – in accordance with Article 46 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 57 thereof or, in the case of regionalisation of the single payment scheme, in accordance with Article 63(1) of that regulation – set-aside entitlements without the corresponding land.

(see paras 35, 39, 43-44, operative part 1)

2. Article 51 of Regulation No 796/2004, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 659/2006, read in conjunction with Article 50(4) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the principle of legal certainty, the sanction set out in Article 51(1) is not applicable to a farmer who, while having failed to activate all of his set-aside entitlements, on the ground that he did not have a sufficient number of hectares eligible for set-aside, activated payment entitlements based on permanent pasture.

(see para. 53, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Concept – Sale of agricultural and forestry land by public authorities – National legislation laying down calculation methods for determining the value of land – Lawfulness – Conditions

(Art. 87 EC)

Summary

The notion of aid may include not only positive benefits such as subsidies but also interventions which, in various forms, mitigate the charges that are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and that, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are of the same character and have the same effect. It cannot therefore, as a rule, be precluded that a sale of public land at a price lower than the market value might constitute State aid.

A sale by public authorities of land or buildings to an undertaking or to an individual involved in an economic activity, such as agriculture or forestry, may include elements of State aid, in particular when the sale is not made at market value, that is to say, when it is not sold at the price which a private investor, operating in normal competitive conditions, would have been able to fix. It follows that, when national law establishes rules for calculating the market value of land for its sale by public authorities, the application of those rules must, in order to accord with Article 87 EC, lead in all cases to a price as close as possible to the market value. The latter being theoretical, except in the case of sales accepting the highest bid, a margin for variation on the price obtained as compared with the theoretical price must of necessity be tolerated.

It must, however, be noted that, in the context of the common agricultural policy, any sale of public land at a price lower than the market value need not necessarily be considered to be contrary to the Treaty. In the context of the wide discretion it enjoys where the common agricultural policy is concerned, the Union legislature adopted new rules specifically concerning the grant of aid in the area of agricultural policy, including, in particular, aid for investment in agricultural holdings, by means of, first, Regulation No 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, applicable ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings, and, subsequently, Regulation No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

In any event, Article 87 EC does not preclude a provision of national law laying down calculation methods for determining the value of agricultural and forestry land, offered for sale by public authorities in the context of a privatisation plan, to the extent that those methods provide for the updating of the prices, where prices for such land are rising sharply, so that the price actually paid by the purchaser reflects, in so far as is possible, the market value of that land.

(see paras 30-35, 43, 54, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council – Scope – New restriction – Concept

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 13)

Summary

As regards Turkish workers who have worked in a Member State in which, on 1 December 1980, Decision No 1/80 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey entered into force, Article 13 of that decision must be interpreted in the following manner: a tightening of a provision of that Member State relating to the obtaining of a residence permit by Turkish workers, introduced after 1 December 1980, which provided for a relaxation of the provision applicable on 1 December 1980, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that article, even if that tightening does not make the conditions governing the acquisition of that permit more stringent than those resulting from the provision in force on 1 December 1980, which it is for the national court to determine.

In that regard, it should be observed that, since the wording of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 does not stipulate any particular date from which the standstill rule is to apply, the existence of new restrictions, within the meaning of that article, can be assessed in relation to the date of entry into force of the text in which it appears, this being, in the present cases, the date on which Decision No 1/80 entered into force.

It does not follow, however, that that is the only relevant date. Thus, in order to determine the significance of the term ‘new restrictions’ for the purpose of Article 13 of Decision 1/80, it is necessary to refer to the objective pursued by that provision. Article 13 is designed to create conditions conducive to the gradual establishment of freedom of movement for workers by prohibiting national authorities from creating new obstacles to that freedom so as not to make its gradual achievement more difficult between the Member States and the Republic of Turkey. It must be held that the scope of the standstill obligation in Article 13 extends by analogy to any new obstacle to the exercise of free movement by workers which makes more stringent the conditions existing at a given time.

It is thus necessary to ensure that the Member States do not depart from the objective pursued by reversing measures which they have adopted in favour of the free movement of Turkish workers after Decision No 1/80 entered into force within their territory. It follows that the relevant date from which it is appropriate to assess whether the introduction of the new rules gives rise to ‘new restrictions’ is the date on which those provisions were adopted.

(see paras 49-52, 54-56, 62, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 28c(A))

Summary

Where an intra-Community supply of goods has actually taken place, but, at the time of that supply, the supplier concealed the identity of the true purchaser in order to enable the latter to evade payment of value added tax, the Member State of departure of the intra-Community supply may, pursuant to its powers under the first part of the sentence in Article 28c(A) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 2000/65, refuse to allow an exemption in respect of that transaction.

The presentation of false invoices or false declarations and any other manipulation of evidence is liable to prevent the correct collection of the tax and, therefore, to compromise the proper functioning of the common system of value added tax. Such actions are all the more serious when committed in the context of the transitional arrangements for the taxation of intra-Community transactions, which operate on the basis of the evidence provided by taxable persons. Therefore, EU law does not prevent Member States from treating the issuing of irregular invoices as amounting to tax evasion and from refusing to grant the exemption in such cases.

However, with regard to particular cases in which there are genuine reasons to assume that the intra-Community acquisition corresponding to the supply at issue might escape payment of the value added tax in the destination Member State, notwithstanding the mutual assistance of and administrative cooperation between the tax authorities of the Member States concerned, the Member State of departure is, in principle, required to refuse to grant the exemption to the supplier of the goods and to require that supplier to pay the tax subsequently in order to ensure that the transaction in question does not escape taxation altogether. In accordance with the fundamental principle of the common system of value added tax, value added tax applies to each transaction by way of production or distribution after deduction of the value added tax directly borne by the various cost components.

(see paras 48-49, 52, 55, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Accession of new Member States to the European Union – 2003 Act of Accession – Transitional measures – Freedom to provide services – Posting of workers

(Arts 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU; 2003 Act of Accession, Art. 24 and Annex XII, Chapter 2, paragraph 2; European Parliament and Council Directive 96/71, Art. 1(3)(c))

2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services – Directive 96/71 – Posting of workers – Meaning

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/71, Art. 1(3)(c))

Summary

1. Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU do not preclude a Member State from making subject to the obtaining of a work permit the hiring-out, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, in its territory, of workers who are Polish nationals, during the transitional period provided for in Chapter 2, paragraph 2, of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,.

Such a national measure must be considered to be a measure regulating access of Polish nationals to the labour market of the Member State concerned within the meaning of Chapter 2, paragraph 2, of Annex XII to the 2003 Act of Accession. Such a finding also necessarily follows from the purpose of that paragraph, which is intended to prevent, following the accession to the European Union of new Member States, disturbances on the labour market of the existing Member States due to the immediate arrival of a large number of workers who are nationals of those new States.

(see paras 32, 34, 41, operative part 1)

2. The hiring-out of workers, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, is a service provided for remuneration in respect of which the worker who has been hired out remains in the employ of the undertaking providing the service, no contract of employment being entered into with the user undertaking. It is characterised by the fact that the movement of the worker to the host Member State constitutes the very purpose of the provision of services effected by the undertaking providing the services and that that worker carries out his tasks under the control and direction of the user undertaking.

(see para. 51, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – ETUC, UNICE and CEEP Framework agreement on fixed-term work – Directive 1999/70 – Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts – National legislation including effective measures to avoid and penalise such abuse – Concept of ‘a close objective connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer’ – Duty of the national court to interpret national law in accordance with Union law

(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 5, Point 1)

Summary

Clause 5(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘a close objective connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer’, provided for in national legislation, must be applied to situations in which a fixed-term contract has not been immediately preceded by a contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer and an interval of several years separates those contracts, when, for that entire period, the initial employment relationship continued for the same activity, with the same employer, by means of an uninterrupted succession of fixed-term contracts. It is for the national court, to the fullest extent possible, to interpret the relevant provisions of national law in such a way as to comply with clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement.

(see para. 57, operative part)