ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Scope and limits

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23)

2. Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Income tax – Rental income

(Art. 63 TFEU)

Summary

1. In view of the division of responsibilities between the national courts and the Court of Justice on which the procedure referred to in Article 267 TFEU is based, the referring court cannot be required to make all the findings of fact and of law required by its judicial function before it may bring the matter before the Court. It is sufficient that both the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and the main issues raised for the European Union legal order may be understood from the reference for a preliminary ruling, in order to enable the Member States to submit their observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and to participate effectively in the proceedings before the Court.

(see para. 19)

2. Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while allowing a resident taxpayer to deduct the annuities paid to a relative who transferred to him immovable property situated in the territory of that State from the rental income derived from that property, does not grant such a deduction to a non-resident taxpayer, in so far as the undertaking to pay those annuities results from the transfer of that property.

To the extent that a non-resident taxpayer’s undertaking to pay the annuity to his relative results from the transfer to him of immovable property situated in the Member State concerned – that being a matter for the referring court to establish – that annuity constitutes an expense directly linked to the use of that property, with the result that that individual is in that regard in a situation comparable to that of a resident taxpayer.

In those circumstances, national provisions which, in matters of income tax, deny non-residents the right to deduct such an expense, while that right is, by contrast, granted to residents, is, in the absence of valid justification, contrary to Article 63 TFEU.

(see paras 46-47, 49, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Union law – Principles – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Administrative procedure – Assessment that must be made in concreto – Criteria for assessment – Assessment within the jurisdiction of the General Court – Review by the Court of Justice (see paras 32-36)

2. Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paras 45-46)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 48-49)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009, in Case T‑33/07 Greece v Commission , by which that court dismissed an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2006) 5993) – Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruit sectors.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Plea of inadmissibility – Obligation to submit a plea by separate document – Limits

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114)

2. Appeals – Interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Appeal capable of securing an advantage to the party bringing it – Scope

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c))

Summary

1. Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in no way requires every plea of inadmissibility to be submitted by separate document. On the contrary, the submission of such a plea by separate document is necessary only if the party submitting it intends to ask the General Court for a decision on the admissibility of the action without going to the substance of the case.

Thus, a plea of inadmissibility may be raised in a defence and examined by the General Court when it adjudicates on the action.

(see paras 43-45)

2. An applicant cannot have a legitimate interest in annulment of a decision when it is already certain that that decision which concerns it cannot be other than reconfirmed. In addition, a plea for annulment is inadmissible on the ground of lack of interest in bringing proceedings when, even if that plea were well founded, annulment of the contested act on the basis of that plea would not give the applicant satisfaction. Thus, the General Court, after rejecting a first plea in law, may find that it is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the other pleas raised by the applicant, if they would not have enabled it to succeed in its action.

(see paras 49-50)

3. An appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the General Court’s decision which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by a ground of appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error allegedly vitiating the decision under appeal, merely reproduces arguments previously submitted before the General Court. Such a ground of appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of a plea submitted before the General Court, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake. In addition, a mere abstract statement of a plea in an appeal, unsupported by more specific information, does not fulfil the duty to state the reasons for an appeal. That is the case when a ground of appeal simply refers to a number of provisions of European Union law, without showing that they are applicable in the present case and without setting out in what respect those provisions have been infringed.

(see paras 55, 61)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – European Union legislation – Matters covered – Short-term incapacity benefit in youth – Inclusion as an invalidity benefit and not as a sickness benefit

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1)(b))

2. Social security for migrant workers – Benefits – Residence clauses – Waiver – Condition of residence for the award of a short-term incapacity benefit in youth

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 10(1), first subpara.)

3. Citizenship of the European Union – Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States – Social advantages – Short-term incapacity benefit in youth

(Art. 21(1), TFEU)

Summary

1. Short-term incapacity benefit in youth is an invalidity benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, if it is clear that, on the date on which the claim is made, the claimant has a permanent or long-term disability. In such a situation, that benefit relates directly to the risk of invalidity referred to in that provision.

(see paras 53-54, operative part1)

2. The first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, precludes a Member State from making the award of short-term incapacity benefit in youth, which is regarded as an invalidity benefit, subject to a condition of ordinary residence by the claimant in that State.

(see para. 70, operative part 2)

3. Article 21(1) TFEU precludes a Member State from making the award of short-term incapacity benefit in youth subject:

– to a condition of past presence of the claimant in that State to the exclusion of any other element enabling the existence of a genuine link between the claimant and that Member State to be established, or

– to a condition of presence of the claimant in that State on the date on which the claim is made.

(see paras 104, 109-110, operative part 2)
Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425 and 91/496, as amended by Directive 95/29, applies to, inter alia, rail transport.

It is apparent from the wording of the various paragraphs of point 48 of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 that those paragraphs whose field of application is limited to one particular means of transport contain an express reference to that effect. Thus, it is clear from the wording of paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of point 48 that they apply to road, rail and sea transport, respectively. Point 48(5) containing no such express reference, it must be considered to apply to all means of transport.

The interpretation according to which point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 applies to rail transport is confirmed by the scheme of the provisions of that directive. It follows from the definitions of the terms ‘transport’ and ‘rest period’ given in Article 2(2) of that directive that periods between the time when animals are loaded on to and unloaded from a means of transport are all necessarily periods of either ‘transport’ or ‘rest’. However, inasmuch as it is not disputed that the rules on maximum journey time, laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of point 48 of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628, apply to, inter alia, rail transport, it must be held that the rules relating to the rest period after a period of transport also apply to that means of transport.

That interpretation is also supported by the objective of Directive 91/628, which, according to the ninth recital in the preamble, is to ensure more effective protection of animals during transport.

(see paras 24-28, operative part 1)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑7/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/86/EC – Traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells – Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting within the period prescribed in the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2010 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑330/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/43/EC – Company law – Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 May 2010 – Commission v Poland

(Case C‑311/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Taxation – VAT – International carriage of persons – Flat-rate taxation of transporters domiciled outside the national territory

1. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification (Art. 226 EC) (see para 18)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para 19)

3. 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 31)

4. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see point 34)

5. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount – Deduction of input tax – Obligations of persons liable for payment of the tax (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 73, 168 and 273) (see para 39, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – International carriage of persons by road – National rules requiring transporters domiciled abroad to pay VAT under a flat-rate system based only on the number of persons transported to the national territory and which does not allow any right to deduct tax paid at an earlier stage.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by charging value added tax in the manner set out in Chapter 13, Paragraph 35(1), (3), (4) and (5), of the Regulation of the Minister for Finance of 27 April 2004 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on the taxation of goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2010 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑478/09)

Merger or division of public limited liability companies – Requirement of an independent expert’s report – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 – Commission v Poland

(Case C‑228/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 – Taxable amount – Sale of a car – Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty applicable to non-registered cars

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 78(1)(a), 79, 83 and 86) (see paras 33-34, 39-40, 46-48, 50-51)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Sale of a motor vehicle – Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty payable on the registration of a vehicle.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 July 2010 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑189/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/24/EC – Respect for private life – Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Disregard of the obligations imposed by a directive – Defences – Challenge to the lawfulness of the directive – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent measure (Art. 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 15-16)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 18)

3. 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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/24) (see paras 19-22)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

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 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 – Commission v Greece

(Case C-512/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/66/EC – Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/66) (see paras 7-10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 2006 L 266, p. 1).

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 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2010 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑154/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/22/EC – Electronic communications – Networks and services – Articles 3(2) and 8(2) – Designation of undertakings responsible for universal service obligations – Incorrect transposition

1. Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22 – Designation of undertakings for the provision of the universal service – Obligation to use an efficient, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory designation procedure (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Arts 3(2) and 8(2)) (see paras 34-39, 42-49)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 37-38)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 51)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Designation of the undertakings responsible for universal service obligations.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly into national law the provisions of European Union law governing the designation of universal service provider(s) and, in any event, by failing to ensure that those provisions are applied in practice, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive).