ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The first paragraph of Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2009/162, does not require Member States to register of their own motion a taxable person for the purposes of collecting VAT solely on the basis of tax returns, other than those relating to VAT, where those returns would have made it possible to establish that the taxable person had exceeded the exemption threshold for VAT.

Although Member States are required to check taxable persons’ returns, accounts and other relevant documents, and to calculate and collect the tax due, in the first place, under Article 213(1) of that directive, it is for the interested party to state when his activity as a taxable person commences, changes or ceases. Furthermore, Member States have a certain discretion when they adopt measures to ensure the identification of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT. In the second place, Member States are required to ensure compliance with the obligations to which taxable persons are subject, whilst enjoying in that respect a certain measure of latitude, inter alia, as to how they use the means at their disposal.

It follows that Directive 2006/12 does not require Member States to adopt legislative and administrative measures which ensure that, in the management of tax returns other than those relating to VAT, the taxpayer’s compliance with the obligations relating to VAT has been checked at the same time, where those returns do not necessarily contain all the information which may be provided in a VAT return under Article 250(1) of Directive 2006/112 and which is necessary to establish that tax.

(see paras 26, 28-31, operative part 1)
Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning genuine use of the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) of that directive.

If the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future.

(see para. 34, operative part 2)
The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1214/2007, must be interpreted as meaning that amino acid mixes which are used in the preparation of foodstuffs for infants and young children who are allergic to cow’s milk proteins, must be classified under heading 2106 of that nomenclature as ‘food preparations’ since, because of their objective characteristics and properties, those goods do not have clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics, with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human organism and, accordingly, are not capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments and also are not naturally intended for medical use, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

In that regard, it is clear from the actual wording of note 1(a) to Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature that dietetic foods or beverages, other than nutritional preparations for intravenous administration, which, without being part of the daily diet, are nevertheless used purely for feeding purposes are excluded from that chapter. It follows therefrom that goods manufactured solely for nutritional preparations which form part of the daily diet cannot be classified as ‘medicaments consisting of constituents which have been mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses’ within the meaning of heading 3003 of the Combined Nomenclature.

It follows, in addition, from the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, drafted by the World Customs Organisation, that food preparations containing only nutritional substances cannot be classified as ‘medicaments’ under heading 30.03 of the that system, corresponding to heading 3003 of the Combined Nomenclature. That is the case in particular of goods which are purely substitute foodstuffs and contain no active medicinal substance as regards allergies.

(see paras 35-37, operative part)
Given the objective of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, which consists in providing for a high level of protection of the environment, the provisions which delimit the directive’s scope, in particular those setting out the definitions of the measures envisaged by the directive, must be interpreted broadly. Any exceptions to or limitations of those provisions must, consequently, be interpreted strictly.

Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the adoption of a measure containing a plan or programme relating to town and country planning and land use falling within the scope of Directive 2001/42 that modifies an existing plan or programme may not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment under that directive on the ground that that measure is intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure that has not itself been the subject of such an environmental assessment.

Indeed, an interpretation to that effect would be incompatible with the objectives of Directive 2001/42 and would undermine its effectiveness, since it would mean that a potentially broad category of measures modifying plans and programmes likely to give rise to significant environmental effects is, on principle, excluded from the scope of that directive even though those measures are expressly covered by the terms of Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of that directive.

(see paras 53, 59, operative part)
Articles 10, 11 and 13 of Directive 95/46 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as precluding national measures that allow a public administrative body of a Member State to transfer personal data to another public administrative body and their subsequent processing, without the data subjects having been informed of that transfer or processing.

The requirement to inform the data subjects concerned about the processing of their personal data is all the more important since it affects the exercise by the data subjects of their right of access to, and right to rectify, the data being processed, set out in Article 12 of Directive 95/46, and their right to object to the processing of those data, set out in Article 14 of that directive. It follows that the requirement of fair processing of personal data laid down in Article 6 of Directive 95/46 requires a public administrative body to inform the data subjects concerned of the transfer of those data to another public administrative body for the purpose of their processing by the latter in its capacity as recipient of those data.

(see paras 33, 34, 46, operative part)
Case C‑20/14

BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH

v

Bodo Scholz

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Further grounds for refusal or invalidity — Word mark — Same letter sequence as an earlier trade mark — Addition of a descriptive word combination — Existence of a likelihood of confusion’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 22 October 2015

Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95 — Refusal of registration or invalidity — Further grounds for refusal or invalidity concerning conflicts with earlier rights — Later word mark which incorporates the same letter sequence as an earlier mark and adds a descriptive word combination — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment by the national court

Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95 — Definition and acquisition of the mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark — Element common to two marks which has an independent distinctive role in the later mark — Likelihood of confusion

The absolute grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and the relative grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 4(1)(b) of that directive pursue different aims and are intended to protect distinct interests. The general interest underlying Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95 is that of ensuring that signs which describe one or more characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration as a mark is sought may be freely used by all traders offering such goods or services. The notion of general interest underlying Article 3(1)(b) of that directive is indissociable from the essential function of a trade mark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the product or service covered by the mark to the consumer or end-user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others which have another origin. By contrast, Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95 is intended to protect the individual interests of proprietors of earlier marks that come into conflict with the sign applied for and thus guarantees the trade mark as an indication of origin if there is a likelihood of confusion. (see paras 23-26)

Whether a sign consisting of a letter sequence juxtaposed with a word combination is to be refused registration under Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, according to the perception which the relevant public has of the interdependence between the various elements of the sign and of the sign as a whole. (see para. 31)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 35-41)
2.

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts entailing implementing measures — Concept — Regulation No 861/2010 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff — Included — Judicial remedies available against such acts — Existence of internal remedies against implementing measures (Art. 19(1) TEU; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 861/2010, Annex) (see paras 47-55, 61-64)
Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States and Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States who are in a situation such as that referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive are excluded from entitlement to certain ’special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, which also constitute ’social assistance’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38.

Article 6(1) of that directive provides that provides that Union citizens have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of up to three months without any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport and, under Article 14(1) of that directive, that right is retained as long as the Union citizen and his family members do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State. That said, the host Member State may rely on the derogation in Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 in order to refuse to grant that citizen the social assistance sought. Indeed, it follows from the express wording of that provision that the host Member State may refuse to grant persons other than workers, self-employed persons or those who retain that status any social assistance during the first three months of residence. That provision is consistent with the objective of maintaining the financial equilibrium of the social assistance system of the Member States pursued by Directive 2004/38, as is apparent, in particular, from recital 10 in the preamble to that directive. Since the Member States cannot require Union citizens to have sufficient means of subsistence and personal medical cover for a period of residence of a maximum of three months in their respective territories, it is legitimate not to require those Member States to be responsible for those citizens during that period.

The same conclusion must be reached as regards the interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004. The benefits at issue, which constitute ’special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of that regulation, are, under Article 70(4), to be provided exclusively in the Member State in which the persons concerned reside, in accordance with the legislation of that Member State. It follows that there is nothing to prevent such benefits being refused to nationals of other Member States who do not have the status of workers or self-employed persons or persons who retain such status during the first three months of residence in the host Member State.

(see paras 42-45, 52, operative part)
3.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case — No need to specify all the relevant factual and legal elements (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 20)
Case C‑154/14 P

SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH

and

SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Articles 12 and 14 — Right to be heard — In camera hearing’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 16 June 2016

Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Hearing of undertakings — Rejection of the application of an undertaking to present its case in camera because of the risk of infringement of the rights of defence of another undertaking — Infringement of the right to be heard of the applicant undertaking

Competition — Fines — Joint and several liability for payment — Determination of the share of the fine to be borne by the joint and several co-debtors — Jurisdiction of the national courts

Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

See the text of the decision. (see para. 33)

The obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU is an essential procedural requirement, as distinct from the question whether the reasons given are correct, which goes to the substantive legality of the contested measure. The reasoning of a decision consists in a formal statement of the grounds on which that decision is based. If those grounds are vitiated by errors, the latter will vitiate the substantive legality of the decision, but not the statement of reasons in it, which may be adequate even though it sets out reasons which are incorrect. It follows that objections and arguments intended to establish that a measure is not well founded are irrelevant in the context of a ground of appeal alleging breach of Article 296 TFEU. (see para. 39)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 40)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 50, 51)

In a case of application of procedural rules for breach of EU competition rules, the General Court erred in law and infringed the appellants’ right to be heard, by holding that the Hearing Officer could refuse to hold an in camera hearing on the grounds that such a hearing could have harmed the rights of defence of an undertaking even though it was a third party to the proceedings in respect of the infringement period. Even if some of the evidence communicated to the Commission might have subsequently led it to hold that third party liable for the infringement concerned for a longer period than that originally considered, the Commission is required, in any event, to issue that third party company with a supplementary statement of objections so as to enable that company to present its observations on that evidence. (see paras 66-68)
Article 135(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers is not applicable to a ‘card handling’ service, carried out by a taxable person, the provider of that service, where an individual buys, via that provider, a cinema ticket which the service provider sells for and on behalf of another entity, and which the individual pays for by debit card or by credit card.

The provider of a card handling service, which consists, in essence, for that taxable person, in obtaining, from the purchaser, the data pertaining to the payment card to be used, transmitting that data to its merchant acquirer, receiving the authorisation code issued by the card issuer, via that merchant acquirer, and then, when the ticket availability is confirmed, retransmitting that data and authorisation code to its merchant acquirer, plays no specific and essential part in achieving the changes in the legal and financial situation that are the result of a transfer of ownership of the funds concerned and that can be said to be characteristic of a transaction concerning payments or transfers that is exempted under Article 135(1)(d), but does no more than provide technical and administrative assistance for obtaining information and communicating that information to its merchant acquirer, and receiving, by the same means, the communication of information that enables it to effect a sale and to receive the corresponding funds.

(see paras 31, 51, 57, operative part)
Article 7(3) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 2004/66, must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in that provision at the date of their re-exportation but were removed from that arrangement as a result of their re-exportation, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005.

Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, read in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the goods at issue remained under the external transit procedure until the date at which they were re-exported, since value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in Article 61 of that directive, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, nobody is liable for payment of the value added tax. Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as not being applicable in situations relating to the repayment of value added tax.

(see para. 83, operative part 2)
Case C‑555/14

IOS Finance EFC SA

v

Servicio Murciano de Salud

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 6 de Murcia)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Commercial transactions between private undertakings and public authorities — National legislation making the immediate recovery of the principal amount of a debt conditional upon the waiver of interest for late payment and of compensation for recovery costs)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 16 February 2017

Approximation of laws — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7 — National legislation making the immediate recovery of the principal amount of a debt conditional upon the waiver of interest for late payment and of compensation for recovery costs — Lawfulness — Condition — Waiver freely agreed to — Verification a matter for the national court

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/7, Art. 7(2) and (3))

Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, and Article 7(2) and (3) thereof in particular, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a creditor to waive his right to interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs in exchange for immediate payment of the principal amount of debts owed, on condition that such a waiver is freely agreed to, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in order to assess whether the waiver has been freely agreed to, it is necessary to ensure that the creditor was in fact able to rely on any effective legal remedy to seek, had he wished to, payment of the debt in full, including interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

(see paras 35, 36, operative part)