ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supplies of goods or services effected by a taxable person acting as such

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2(1), 4 and 5(1))

Summary

Transactions in which a taxable person established in a Member State buys goods from companies established in that Member State and sells them to purchasers established in another Member State, and which are not themselves vitiated by value added tax fraud, constitute supplies of goods or services effected by a taxable person acting as such and an economic activity within the meaning of Articles 2(1), 4 and 5(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes where they fulfil the objective criteria on which the definitions of those terms are based, regardless of the intention of a trader other than the taxable person concerned involved in the same chain of supply and/or the possible fraudulent nature of another transaction in the chain, prior or subsequent to the transaction carried out by that taxable person, of which that taxable person had no knowledge and no means of knowledge. The right to deduct input value added tax of a taxable person who carries out such transactions cannot be affected by the fact that in the chain of supply of which those transactions form part another prior or subsequent transaction is vitiated by value added tax fraud, without that taxable person knowing or having any means of knowing.

(see paras 51-52, 55, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Privileges and immunities of the European Communities – Fiscal immunity of the Communities – Agreement on the seat of the European Central Bank – Refund of turnover tax in respect of various supplies of goods and services in the context of supplies intended for official use by the Bank – Condition – Separate invoicing – Clear and precise condition

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 3, second para.)

2. Privileges and immunities of the European Communities – Fiscal immunity of the Communities – Refund of indirect taxes and sales taxes in respect of property – Application to turnover tax for various supplies of goods and services – Condition – Separate invoicing – Lawfulness – Margin of discretion of Community institutions and Member States in the conclusion of implementation agreements with regard to refunds

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 3, second para.)

Summary

1. Article 8(1) of the Agreement of 18 September 1998 concluded between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Central Bank on the seat of that institution makes the refund of turnover tax in respect of various supplies of goods and services in the context of supplies intended for official use by the Bank expressly and unambiguously subject to the condition that that tax be ‘invoiced separately’ to the Bank. Although an interpretation of a provision of an agreement ‘in the light’ of its legal context is possible in principle to resolve a drafting ambiguity, such an interpretation cannot have the result of depriving the clear and precise wording of that provision of all effectiveness.

(see para. 31)

2. The condition, laid down in Article 8(1) of the Agreement of 18 September 1998 concluded between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Central Bank on the seat of that institution which makes the refund of turnover tax in respect of various supplies of goods and services in the context of supplies intended for official use by the Bank subject to the requirement that that tax be ‘invoiced separately’ in order for it to be reimbursed by the Member State is contrary neither to the aims nor to the wording of the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, which provides that Member States are to remit or refund the amount of indirect taxes or sales taxes included in the price of substantial purchases made by the Communities for their official use. That provision merely provides for the adoption of ‘appropriate measures’ with a view to tax refunds only with regard to ‘substantial purchases’ and only ‘wherever possible’. A margin of discretion is thus granted to the Community institutions and the Member States in the conclusion of agreements concerning the implementation of the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol.

(see para. 32)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Option for the Member States to exempt supplies of goods imported under the arrangements for temporary importation and supplies of services relating thereto

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1))

Summary

A Member State which applies a reduced rate of value added tax to the commission received by auctioneers on sales by auction of works of art, antiques and collectors’ items imported under the arrangements for temporary importation has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 99/49.

In order to tax both the importation and the sale by auction in accordance with the conditions referred to in Article 16(1) of the Sixth Directive, it is necessary to draw a distinction between that part of the auction price which corresponds to the auctioneer’s commission and that which corresponds to the customs value of the imported goods. The former thus constitutes the taxable amount for the sale by auction, calculated under Article 26a of the Sixth Directive and levied at the standard rate laid down in Article 12(3)(a) of that directive, while the latter corresponds to the customs value of the goods which is subject to value added tax on imports and levied at an effective reduced rate applicable in the Member State concerned under Article 11B(6) of that directive.

(see paras 43, 51, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 33(1))

Summary

Article 33 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680, does not preclude the maintenance of a charge to tax with the characteristics of the Italian regional tax on productive activities. Such a charge differs from value added tax in such a way that it cannot be characterised as a turnover tax within the meaning of Article 33(1) of the directive, inasmuch as it cannot be considered proportional to the price of goods or services supplied and is not intended to be passed on to the final consumer in a way that is characteristic of value added tax.

(see paras 30, 35, 38-39, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals

2. Community law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals

Summary

1. Community law precludes national legislation which excludes State liability, in a general manner, for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of Community law attributable to a court adjudicating at last instance by reason of the fact that the infringement in question results from an interpretation of provisions of law or an assessment of facts or evidence carried out by that court.

To exclude all State liability in such circumstances would be tantamount to rendering meaningless the principle that Member States are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by clear infringements of Community law following upon a decision of a national court adjudicating at last instance, since such exclusion would not guarantee effective judicial protection to individuals of the rights conferred on them by Community law.

(see paras 33, 36, 40, 44, 46, operative part)

2. Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by reason of an infringement of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance can be incurred in the exceptional case where that court manifestly infringed the applicable law. Such manifest infringement is to be assessed, inter alia, in the light of a number of criteria, such as the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed, whether the infringement was intentional, whether the error of law was excusable or inexcusable, and the non-compliance by the court in question with its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC; it is in any event presumed where the decision involved is made in manifest disregard of the case-law of the Court on the subject.

In that regard, although it remains possible for national law to define the criteria relating to the nature or degree of the infringement which must be met before State liability can be incurred for an infringement of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance, under no circumstances may such criteria impose requirements stricter than that of a manifest infringement of the applicable law, as set out in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the judgment in Case C‑224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239.

Accordingly, Community law also precludes national legislation which limits such liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court, if such a limitation were to lead to exclusion of the liability of the Member State concerned in other cases where a manifest infringement of the applicable law was committed.

(see paras 42-44, 46, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

11 December 2003

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Measures having equivalent effect – Importers and distributors of medicinal products – Submission of a certified copy or a document attesting to the holding of a marketing authorisation))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Signs capable of constituting a mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 2)

Summary

Article 2 of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the subject-matter of an application for trade mark registration which relates to all the conceivable shapes of a transparent bin or collection chamber forming part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner, is not a ‘sign’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore is not capable of constituting a trade mark within the meaning thereof.

The subject-matter of such an application, which in reality resides in a mere property of the product concerned, is capable of taking on a multitude of different appearances and is thus not specific. Given the exclusivity inherent in trade mark right, the holder of a trade mark relating to such a non-specific subject-matter would obtain an unfair competitive advantage, contrary to the purpose pursued by Article 2 of the directive, since it would be entitled to prevent its competitors from marketing vacuum cleaners having any kind of transparent collecting bin on their external surface, irrespective of its shape.

(see paras 37-40, operative part)
Case C-404/03

Criminal proceedings

against

Olivier Dupuy and Hervé Rouvre

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance du Mans)

(Dangerous substances or preparations – Siccatives containing lead – Prohibition of placing on the market – Directives 76/769/EEC and 94/60/EC)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances – Directive 76/769, as amended by Directive 94/60 – Derogation for ‘artists’ paints’ – Application to siccatives – Excluded

(Council Directives 76/769, Annex I, point 31(e), as amended by Directive 94/60, and 88/379)

The provisions of Community law relating to restrictions on the placing on the market of dangerous substances or preparations, in particular the provisions of Directive 76/769 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, as amended by Directive 94/60, prohibit the placing on the market for sale to the general public of siccatives containing lead compounds classified as toxic for reproductive purposes.

In particular, the derogation from the restrictions on placing on the market laid down in point 31(e) of Annex I to Directive 76/769 for ‘artists’ paints’ covered by Directive 88/379 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations cannot be applied to those products, since that derogation cannot be extended to products such as siccatives which lack colouring properties.

(see paras 32, 34, operative part)
Case C-169/03

Florian W. Wallentin

v

Riksskatteverket

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden))

(Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Income tax – Restricted liability of a taxpayer receiving a small part of his income in one Member State and residing in another Member State)

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Remuneration – Income tax – Income of non-residents who do not receive income taxable in the Member State of residence subject to deduction at source excluding any tax allowance linked to the personal circumstances of the taxpayer – Not permissible

(Art. 39 EC)

Article 39 EC precludes a Member State’s legislation from providing that

– natural persons who are not regarded as being resident for tax purposes in that Member State, but who receive income there from employment, are subject to taxation levied at source such that the basic allowance or any other allowance or deduction linked to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances is not granted,

– whereas taxpayers resident in that State are entitled to such allowances or deductions at the time of ordinary assessment to tax on their income received in that State and abroad,

– when the persons not resident in the State of taxation have had, in their own State of residence, only income which, by its nature, is not subject to income tax.

(see para. 24, operative part)
Case C-226/03 P

José Martí Peix SA

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Fisheries – Community financial aid – Reduction of the aid – Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Articles 1 and 3 – Limitation period)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the Community’s financial interests – Continuous irregularity – Limitation period – Interrupting act

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Article 1(2) and Article 3(1), second and third subparas)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law – Operative part well founded on other legal grounds – Rejected

1. According to Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, an irregularity presupposes a breach of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator.

Where the omission occasioning the breach of the provision of Community law persists, the irregularity is ‘continuous’ for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that regulation. The corresponding limitation period begins to run only from the day on which the irregularity ceases.

That period is interrupted by a Commission letter which specifically seeks to investigate the irregularity and to reduce the financial aid, since that letter is an investigative document for the purposes of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1).

(see paras 16-18, 30)

2. If the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law but its operative part appears well founded on other legal grounds the appeal must be dismissed.

(see para. 29)
Case C-245/03

Merck, Sharp & Dohme BV

v

État belge

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Counseil d’État (Belgium))

(Directive 89/105/EEC – Medicinal products for human use – Application for entry on a positive list – Nature of the time-limit for responding – Mandatory nature – Consequences of exceeding the time-limit)

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 30 September 2004

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 20 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Pharmaceutical products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use – Application for entry of a medicinal product on the list of medicinal products covered by the national sickness insurance scheme – Mandatory nature of the time-limit for determining the application – Exceeding of the time-limit – Consequences – No automatic entry on the list

(Council Directive 89/105, Art. 6(1), first subpara.)

The time-limit for determining an application for entry of a medicinal product on the list of medicinal products covered by the national sickness insurance scheme laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is a mandatory time-limit which the national authorities are not entitled to exceed.

However, the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) does not impose the automatic entry of a medicinal product on the list of proprietary medicinal products covered by the sickness insurance system where the time-limit laid down in that article is exceeded.

(see paras 24, 34, operative part 1-2)
Case C-293/03

Gregorio My

v

Office national des pensions (ONP)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles)

(Community officials – Transfer of pension rights – Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations – Early retirement pension – Reckoning of periods of employment with the European Community – Article 10 EC)

Summary of the judgment

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Definition – Member State national employed by an international organisation – Included – Limit – Worker who is a Member State national and spent his entire working life in that Member State

(Art. 39 EC)

2. Member States – Obligations – Duty of genuine cooperation with the Community institutions – Failure to take account of periods of employment within the European Communities for the grant of an early retirement pension under a national scheme – Not permissible

(Art. 10 EC; Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

1. An official of the European Communities working in a Member State other than his State of origin has the status of a migrant worker. He does not lose his status of worker within the meaning of Article 39(1) EC through occupying a post within an international organisation, even if the rules relating to his entry into and residence in the country in which he is employed are specifically governed by an international agreement.

The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of workers, and particularly Article 39 EC, cannot, however, be applied to situations which are wholly internal to a Member State. Accordingly those provisions do not apply to a worker who has spent his entire working life in the Member State of which he is a national, first as an employer and then, up to retirement age, as an official of the European Communities.

(see paras 37, 39-40, 43)

2. Article 10 EC, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which does not permit years of employment completed by a Community citizen in the service of a Community institution to be taken into account for the purposes of entitlement to an early retirement pension under the national scheme is contrary to those provisions.

Such national legislation is likely to impede and therefore to discourage employment within an institution of the European Union, inasmuch as, by accepting employment with such an institution, a worker who was formerly a member of a national pension scheme risks losing the right to benefit under that scheme from an old-age pension to which he would have been entitled had he not accepted that employment.

Such consequences cannot be accepted in the light of the duty of genuine cooperation and assistance which Member States owe the Community and which finds expression in the obligation laid down in Article 10 EC to facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks.

(see paras 47-49, operative part)
Joined Cases C-96/03 and C-97/03

A. Tempelman and Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk

v

Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

(References for a preliminary ruling from the

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven)

(Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Protective measures adopted in addition to the measures provided for in Directive 85/511/EEC – Powers of the Member States)

Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 2 December 2004

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 March 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Directive 85/511 – Additional national measures to control the disease based on Directive 90/425 – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Directives 85/511, as amended by Directive 90/423, and 90/425, Art. 10(1))

Since foot-and-mouth disease is a disease which constitutes a serious hazard for animals, Article 10(1) of Directive 90/425 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market confers on Member States the power to adopt measures to control the disease in addition to those provided for in Directive 85/511 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, as amended by Directive 90/423. Member States have, in particular, the power to order the slaughter of animals belonging to a holding adjacent to or within a specific radius of a holding containing infected animals.

Such measures must however be adopted in compliance with the objectives pursued by the Community rules in force and, more particularly, Directive 85/511, as amended by Directive 90/423, the general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality, and the obligation to communicate laid down in Article 10(1) of Directive 90/425.

(see para. 52, operative part)
Case C-13/03 P

Commission of the European Communities

v

Tetra Laval BV

(Appeal – Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Judgment holding that a decision ordering a separation of undertakings is illegal as a result of the illegality of an earlier decision declaring a merger incompatible with the common market)

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 25 May 2004

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 15 February 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Appeals – Purpose – Annulment of a judgment of the Court of First Instance holding that a decision ordering a separation of undertakings is illegal as a result of the illegality of the decision declaring the merger between the undertakings concerned to be incompatible with the common market – Appeal devoid of purpose by reason of the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment holding the decision of incompatibility to be unlawful – No need to adjudicate

(EC Statuteof the Courtof Justice, Art. 49)