ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Special derogating measures – Decision 2000/186 authorising a flat-rate limit on the right to deduct – Breach of the adoption procedure or of substantive requirements – Absence – Retroactive effect – Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 27; Council Decision 2000/186, Arts 2 and 3)

Summary

Decision 2000/186 authorising the Federal Republic of Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6 and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, adopted on the basis of Article 27 of that directive, is intended, inter alia, to limit to 50% the right to deduct the value added tax charged on expenditure on vehicles not used exclusively for business purposes.

The fact that that decision was adopted after derogating measures had been taken by the German authorities, that the Federal Republic of Germany did not publish its request for authorisation to introduce those measures and that the Council inferred from the terms in which the request for authorisation was couched that its intended objective was to simplify the procedure for charging the tax without that objective having been expressly referred to in that request, does not render the procedure leading to the adoption of the decision irregular.

Moreover, Article 2 of that decision, which authorises a flat-rate limit on permitted deductions, set at 50% of the amount paid by way of input value added tax, meets the substantive requirements of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive. In particular, the Council was entitled to consider that that limitation constituted a necessary and appropriate means of preventing tax evasion and avoidance and of simplifying the procedures for charging value added tax.

By contrast, insofar as it provides for the authorisation granted by the Council to the Federal Republic of Germany to have retroactive effect, Article 3 of Decision 2000/186 infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and is therefore invalid. That provision authorised the introduction of a national derogating measure imposing a limit on the deduction of the tax before that measure had been authorised by the Council and at a time when those concerned were entitled to continue to believe that the rule that whole of the tax could be deducted was applicable.

(see paras 23, 25, 30-31, 39-41, 43, 60, 70, operative part 1-3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Directive 84/253 – Approval of persons responsible for statutory auditing of accounting documents – Transitional provisions – Approval of certain categories of professionals without examination of professional competence (Article 15) – Conditions – Time-limit for the exercise of such a power of approval

(Council Directive 84/253, Art. 15)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Directive 84/253 – Approval of persons responsible for statutory auditing of accounting documents – Approval of persons having obtained all or part of their qualifications in another Member State (Article 11) – Conditions

(Council Directive 84/253, Art. 11)

Summary

1. Article 15 of Eighth Council Directive 84/253, based on Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty, on the approval of persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audits of accounting documents, permits all the Member States to approve persons who satisfy the conditions laid down in that article, namely persons who have the qualifications in the Member State concerned to carry out the statutory auditing of the documents referred to in Article 1(1) and who did so for up to a year following the date of application of the national provisions transposing the Eighth Directive, without their being required first to have passed an examination of professional competence, and without its being necessary to consider whether or to what extent the national rules before the adoption of the directive laid down a requirement for a particular class of persons to have passed an examination.

Nevertheless, it is contrary to Article 15 for a Member State to exercise the power provided for therein after the expiry of a period of a year starting to run from the date of application of the national provisions transposing the directive, which date may in no circumstances fall after 1 January 1990.

(see paras 35, 37, 44, 52-53, operative part 1)

2. Article 11 of Eighth Directive 84/253, based on Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty, on the approval of persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audit of accounting documents, enables a host Member State to approve, for the purpose of carrying out the statutory auditing of accounting documents, professional persons already approved in another Member State, without requiring them to pass an examination of professional competence, if the competent authorities of the host Member State consider their qualifications to be equivalent to those required under the national legislation of the host Member State, in accordance with the directive.

In the absence of specific provisions to regulate the assessment of equivalence, it falls to the competent authorities to carry out that assessment, observing the obligations imposed on the Member States by the rules of the Treaty and, in particular, the rules on freedom of establishment.

(see paras 62, 67, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Basis of assessment – Supply of goods and services – Subsidies directly linked to the price – Meaning – Aid granted in the dried fodder sector – Exclusion – National scheme failing to levy value added tax on that aid – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11(A)(1)(a))

Summary

Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, is intended to subject the full value of goods or services to VAT by providing that the basis of assessment comprises subsidies directly linked to the price of the transaction in question, paid to taxable persons. A Member State which does not levy the tax on aid paid under Regulation No 603/95 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder does not fail to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

‘Subsidies linked directly to the price’ include only subsidies which constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.

The conditions for the aid at issue to be subject to VAT are not met in respect of the sale by a processing undertaking, after drying, of fodder purchased from producers of green fodder, since, in such a case, the aid is not paid specifically to a processing undertaking to enable it to supply dried fodder to a purchaser at a price which is lower than on the world market. Nor are those conditions met as regards the special-order contracts concluded by such an undertaking with a producer of green fodder, as the aid which the processing undertaking receives is not paid for its benefit in such a case and that undertaking merely functions as an intermediary between the body which distributes the aid and the fodder producer.

(see paras 27-28, 32-33, 37, 39, 43, 46)
Case C-478/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 49 EC – Freedom to provide services – Patent agents – Choice of domicile with an approved agent – Article 10 EC – Member States' duty of cooperation)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 14 November 2002

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 6 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Patent agents – Requirement to elect domicile with an approved agent – Not permissible

(Art. 49 EC)

2.. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty and protection of individuals – National legislation in a field governed by Community law – Need for unequivocal wording

3.. Member States – Obligations – Supervisory role of the Commission – Duty of the Member States – Cooperation in investigations into alleged infringements by Member States

(Arts 10 EC and 226 EC)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-185/01





Auto Lease Holland BV

v

Bundesamt für Finanzen





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

«(Sixth VAT Directive – Place of taxable transactions – Refund of VAT paid in another Member State – Motor vehicle made available under a leasing contract – Fuel management agreement – Person having been supplied with fuel)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 19 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

8 May 2003

((Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC – Medicinal products – Withdrawal of parallel import licence in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product of reference))

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Finnish Government, represented by E. Bygglin, of the Danish Government, represented by J. Molde, of the Netherlands Government, represented by J. Bakel, acting as Agent, of the Norwegian Government, represented by T. Nordby, and of the Commission, represented by L. Ström, at the hearing on 10 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 December 2002,
Case C-116/01





SITA EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV

v

Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Raad van State (Netherlands))

«(Environment – Waste – Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 – Directive 75/442/EEC – Treatment of waste in several stages – Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and use of incineration residues as raw material in cement manufacture – Classification as a recovery operation or as a disposal operation – Concept of the use of waste principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 14 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 3 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 on waste – Regulation No 259/93 on the shipment of waste – Classification of an operation as either disposal or recovery – Dual classification not permissible

( Council Regulation No 259/93; Council Directive 75/442)

2.. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 on waste – Regulation No 259/93 on the shipment of waste – Classification of an operation as either disposal or recovery – Treatment of waste in several stages – First operation after shipment taken into account

( Council Regulation No 259/93; Council Directive 75/442)

3.. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 on waste – Combustion of waste – Classification of an operation as either disposal or recovery – Criteria – Calorific value not relevant

( Council Directive 75/442, Annex IIA, point D10 and Annex IIB, point R1)

4.. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 on waste – Regulation No 259/93 on the shipment of waste – Classification of an operation as either disposal or recovery – Definition by Member States of distinguishing criteria – Whether permissible – Condition

( Council Regulation No 259/93; Council Directive 75/442)

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

5 June 2003

((Sixth VAT Directive – Article 9(2)(e) – Place of taxable transactions – Fiscal connection – Advertising services))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Design Concept SA, represented by M. Di Stefano, of the Greek Government, represented by V. Kyriazopoulos and S. Chala, acting as Agents, and of the Commission, represented by C. Giolito, at the hearing on 14 November 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 December 2002,
Case C-483/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation – Incomplete implementation)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 15 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on the internal legal order – Not permissible

(Art. 141 EA)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

26 June 2003

((Occupational endowment pension insurance – Policy taken out with a company in another Member State – Difference in tax treatment – Compatibility with Article 49 EC))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) and Mr Ramstedt, represented by J.-M. Bexhed, of the Riksskatteverket, represented by G. Bäck, acting as Agent, of the Swedish Government, represented by A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, acting as Agents, of the Commission, represented by C. Tufvesson and R. Lyal, and of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by E. Wright and by P.A. Bjørgan, at the hearing on 30 January 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 April 2003,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

17 June 2003

((Free movement of goods – Charge on the registration of new motor vehicles – Internal taxation – Measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction))

In Case C-383/01,

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of De Danske Bilimportører, represented by K. Dyekjær-Hansen, of the Danish Government, represented by J. Molde and K. Hagel-Sørensen, of the Finnish Government, represented by T. Pynnä, acting as Agent, and of the Commission, represented by H.C. Støvlbæk, at the hearing on 6 November 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 27 February 2003,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

18 September 2003

((Protection of workers – Insolvency of the employer – Guarantee of payment of outstanding salary – National provision laying down a two-month time-limit for lodging applications for payment and providing for an extension of that time-limit))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 September 2002,
Case C-13/01





Safalero Srl

v

Prefetto di Genova





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova)

«(Directive 1999/5/EC – Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment – Effective judicial protection of rights conferred by the Community legal order – Permissibility of administrative penalties under national legislation – Application to set aside a seizure measure against a third party)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 20 March 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 11 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community law – Direct effect – Individual rights – Protected by national courts and tribunals – Legal proceedings – Detailed national procedural rules – Conditions of application – Determination, by each Member State, of standing and legal interest in bringing proceedings – Limits – Respect for the right to effective judicial protection

2.. Community law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – National legislation preventing an importer challenging a measure under which goods sold to a retailer are seized – Whether permissible – Conditions

1.

2.
Case C-76/01 P





Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and Others

v

Council of the European Union





«(Appeal – Dumping – Failure by the Council to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties – Lack of simple majority necessary for the adoption of the regulation – Expiry of the time-limit for the anti-dumping investigation – Definition of a reviewable act – Obligation to state reasons)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 16 January 2003

Judgment of the Court, 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance – Failure to identify the error of law relied on – Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1), first subpara., (c))

2.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 6(9))

3.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties and decision to close the anti-dumping proceeding without the imposition of anti-dumping duties – Effect of regulatory nature of the proceedings – None

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

4.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Admissibility of actions brought by the complainants and, in certain circumstances, of actions brought by the producers, exporters and importers of the products concerned

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC))

5.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 9(4) and 21)

6.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legislative measure – Inadequate statement of reasons – No liability

(EC Treaty, Arts 190 and 215, second para. (now Arts 253 and 288, second para., EC))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

16 October 2003

((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50/EEC – Renewal of a contract for surveillance of the Belgian coast by aerial photography))

applicant,

v

defendant,

─

─

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 April 2003,
Case C-313/01





Christine Morgenbesser

v

Consiglio dell'Ordine degli avvocati di Genova





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy))

«(Freedom of establishment – Enrolment in the register of praticanti – Recognition of diplomas – Access to regulated professions)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 20 March 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 13 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Lawyers – Practice of the profession on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was acquired – Directive 98/5 – Scope – Trainee lawyer – Not included

(Directive 98/5 of the European Parliament and the Council)

2.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration – Scope of Directive 89/48 – Concept of regulated profession – Trainee lawyer – Not included

(Council Directive 89/48)

3.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Lawyers – Access to the profession – Enrolment of trainee lawyers in the professional register – Requirement of a law degree issued, confirmed or recognised as equivalent by the authorities of the Member State concerned – Not permissible

(Arts 39 EC and 43 EC)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-413/01





Franca Ninni-Orasche

v

Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria))

«(Freedom of movement for workers – Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) – Concept of worker – Contract of employment of a short term fixed in advance – Retention of the status of worker after end of employment contract – Conditions for the grant of social advantages within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 – Study finance)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 27 February 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 6 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Definition – National of a Member State employed for a temporary period of two and a half months in the territory of another Member State – Assessment by the national court

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

2.. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Definition – Person commencing studies after engaging in occupational activity – Retention of the status of worker – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 48 (now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC); Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2))

1.

2.
Case C-322/01





Deutscher Apothekerverband eV

v

0800 DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany))

«(Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Directives 92/28/EEC and 2000/31/EC – National legislation restricting internet sales of medicinal products for human use by pharmacies established in another Member State – Doctor's prescription required for supply – Prohibition on advertising the sale of medicinal products by mail order)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 11 March 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 11 December 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Definition – Prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies – Whether included – Justification limited to medicinal products subject to prescription – Reimportation of medicinal products into the Member State concerned – Not relevant

( Arts 28 EC and 30 EC )

2.. Approximation of laws – Proprietary medicinal products – Advertising – Prohibition on advertising the sale by mail order of medicinal products the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies – Permissible only in respect of medicinal products subject to prescription

( Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 88 )

1.

2.