ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom to provide services – Postal services – Directive 97/67 – Obligation for providers of postal services within the scope of universal service to establish external procedures for dealing with complaints from users

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67, as amended by Directives 2002/39 and 2008/6, Art. 19)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – National legislation requiring providers of postal services which are outside the scope of the universal service to establish an external procedure for dealing with complaints from users

(Art. 49 TFEU)

Summary

1. Directive 97/67 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, in its original version and in the versions as amended by Directive 2002/39 and by Directive 2008/6, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on providers of postal services outside the scope of the universal service a mandatory external procedure for dealing with complaints from users of those services.

Directive 97/67 does not carry out a full harmonisation of the complaints procedures for which it provides. In its original version, as in its amended versions, it envisages those procedures as a minimum framework that is to be additional to the means of redress available under national and European Union law. The Member States therefore have freedom of action to lay down exact procedures and choose the system best adapted to their own circumstances, subject to the restrictions and guidelines laid down in that directive and designed to extend the complaints procedures to any provider of postal services.

(see paras 35, 40, 47, 52, operative part 1)

2. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on providers of postal services outside the scope of the universal service a mandatory external procedure for dealing with complaints from users of those services.

Such legislation does not involve any restriction of freedom of establishment. First, that measure is applied, without discrimination on grounds of nationality, to all providers established in Belgium of postal services outside the scope of the universal service. Secondly, operators cannot expect Member States not to have structures in place that afford legal protection for the interests of their customers and provide out-of-court procedures for settling disputes. Lastly, nearly all Member States have extended the external complaints schemes to providers of postal services outside the scope of the universal service.

(see paras 61-62, 64, operative part 2)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules and declares:

1. By failing to apply to all insurance undertakings, on a non-discriminatory basis, the European Union insurance legislation in its entirety and particularly Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 of the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 and Articles 22 and 23 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/68, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

2. Ireland shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Defence based on difficulties of interpretation – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Union law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages – Differences between the various language versions – General scheme and aims of the legislation in question taken into consideration (see para. 18)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Necessity of clear and precise transposition – Possible subsequent amendment to the annexes governing the technical aspects of and the implementing rules for the directive – No effect on the obligation to transpose the directive (Art. 288, third para., TFEU) (see paras 24-25, 77)

4. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible – Failure to fulfil the obligation to inform placed on the Member States by the directive – Consequences (Art. 4(3) TFEU; Arts 17 TFEU and 258 TFEU) (see paras 30, 32-33, 52)

5. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of a general legal context ensuring the full application of the directive (Art. 288, third para., TFEU) (see paras 40, 47)

6. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Necessity of full transposition into national law (Art. 288, third para., TFEU) (see paras 48, 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate to the European Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions implementing Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of that directive;

2. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/46, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of that directive;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Mark consisting of the specific appearance of the surface of the packaging of a liquid product

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

The criteria for assessing the distinctive character of three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself are no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark.

However, when those criteria are applied, account must be taken of the fact that the perception of the average consumer is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of the appearance of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign independent of the appearance of the products it designates. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging when there is no graphic or word element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctive character in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark.

In those circumstances, only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

That case-law, developed in relation to three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself or the packaging of goods, such as liquids, which are packaged in trade for reasons linked to the very nature of the product, also applies when the trade mark for which registration is sought is an ‘other’ mark consisting of the specific appearance of the surface of the packaging of a liquid product. In such a case, the mark likewise does not consist of a sign independent of the appearance of the necessary packaging of the products it designates.

(see paras 45-48)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Poultrymeat – Export refunds – Classification in the combined nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds

(Commission Regulation No 3846/87, Annex I)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Poultrymeat – Export refunds – Classification in the combined nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds

(Commission Regulation No 3846/87, Annex I)

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Poultrymeat – Export refunds – Classification in the combined nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds

(Commission Regulation No 3846/87, Annex I)

4. Customs union – Customs declarations – Ex post control – Partial examination of the goods covered by the same declaration – Results applying to all the goods declared

(Commission Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 70(1))

Summary

1. Subheading 0207 12 90 of Annex I to Regulation No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass under that subheading has to be completely drawn, so that it is prejudicial to its tariff classification if part of the guts or trachea, for example, are still attached to the carcass following a mechanical gutting process.

(see para. 57, operative part 1)

2. Product code 0207 12 90 9990 of Annex I to Regulation No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds must be interpreted as meaning that, first, an ‘irregular composition’ allows for the presence in a poultry carcass of a maximum of only four giblets from those which it lists, of one or more than one type, provided that the total of four is adhered to, and, second, that a poultry carcass in which the trachea is still attached to the neck does not come under that product code.

(see paras 69, 93, operative part 2, 5)

3. Subheading 0207 12 10 of Annex I to Regulation No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass in which one of the giblets listed in that subheading, namely the neck, heart, liver and gizzard, is present more than once, does not come under that subheading. By contrast, a poultry carcass to which some small quill feathers, plumage feathers, quill ends and hairs are still attached after going through a mechanical plucking process comes under that subheading, provided that those remaining feathers are compatible with the characteristic of a chicken ready for roasting and with sound and fair marketable quality.

(see paras 74, 87, operative part 3-4)

4. When a customs office seeks to determine whether goods presented for export comply with the tariff heading stated in the export declaration, the results of a partial examination of declared goods are valid for all the goods declared, in accordance with Article 70(1) of Regulation 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. A margin of error must not be allowed within which it may be found that an anomaly is not prejudicial to a refund.

(see para. 107, operative part 6)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Law applicable to non-contractual obligations – Regulation No 864/2007 – Scope ratione temporis – Distinction made between the date of entry into force and the date of application – Meaning

(Art. 297 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 864/2007, Arts 31 and 32)

Summary

Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non‑contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be interpreted to the effect that a national court is required to apply the regulation only to events giving rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the regulation.

Article 31 of Regulation No 864/2007, entitled ‘Application in time’, provides that it applies to events giving rise to damage which occur after its entry into force and Article 32, entitled ‘Date of application’, provides that it applies from 11 January 2009. However, for want of a specific provision fixing the date for the entry into force of the regulation, that date must be determined in accordance with the general rule laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 297(1) TFEU. The regulation having been published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 31 July 2007, it entered into force on 20 August 2007, that is to say, the 20th day following that of its publication.

In those circumstances, Article 31 of that regulation may not be interpreted without account’s being taken of the date of application laid down in Article 32 of that regulation, that is to say, 11 January 2009. That is the only interpretation that ensures, in accordance with recitals 6, 13, 14 and 16 of the regulation, the full attainment of the regulation’s objectives, that is to say, the predictability of the outcome of litigation, legal certainty as to the law applicable and the uniform application of that regulation in all the Member States. By contrast, those objectives would be likely to be compromised if the Regulation were to be applied to events occurring between its entry into force and the date set by Article 32.

(see paras 23, 30, 33-35, 37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements – EC/Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons – Social security for migrant workers – Family benefit

(EC/Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons, Art. 8(c); Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 72)

2. International agreements – EC/Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons – Social security for migrant workers – Family benefit

(EC/Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons, Art. 8(c); Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 3(1), 23(1) and (2), and 72, and Annex VI, N, point 1)

Summary

1. On a proper construction of Article 8(c) of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, and Article 72 of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self‑employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Regulation No 1386/2001, when the legislation of a Member State makes the award of a family benefit – such as parental benefit – conditional upon completion of periods of insurance, employment or self-employment, the institution of that Member State competent to make such an award must take into account for those purposes periods completed in their entirety in the Swiss Confederation.

(see para. 45, operative part 1)

2. On a proper construction of Article 8(a) of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, and Article 3(1), Article 23(1) and (2) and Article 72 of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Regulation No 1386/2001, and paragraph 1 of point N of Annex VI thereto, when the amount of a family benefit, such as parental benefit at the daily sick-leave benefit level, falls to be determined in accordance with the rules governing sickness benefit, that amount, awarded to a person who has completed in full the necessary employment periods for acquiring that right in the territory of the other Contracting Party, must be calculated by taking into account the income of a person who has comparable experience and qualifications and who is similarly employed in the Member State in which that benefit is sought.

(see para 53, operative part 2)
The requirement that, in order to be entitled to reduce the taxable amount as set out in the initial invoice, the taxable person must be in possession of acknowledgment of receipt of a correcting invoice by the purchaser of the goods or services constitutes a condition for the purpose Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax.

The principles of the neutrality of value added tax and proportionality do not, in principle, preclude the requirement that, in order to be entitled to reduce the taxable amount as set out in the initial invoice, the taxable person must be in possession of acknowledgment of receipt of a correcting invoice by the purchaser of the goods or services. However, where it is impossible or excessively difficult for the taxable person who is a supplier of goods or services to obtain such acknowledgment of receipt within a reasonable period of time, he cannot be denied the opportunity of establishing, by other means, before the national tax authorities, first, that he has taken all the steps necessary in the circumstances of the case to satisfy himself that the purchaser of the goods or services is in possession of the correcting invoice and is aware of it and, second, that the transaction in question was in fact carried out in accordance with the conditions set out in the correcting invoice.

Copies of the correcting invoice and the reminder addressed to the purchaser of the goods or services to send acknowledgment of receipt and proof of payment or the production of entries from the accounts which make it possible to identify the amount actually paid to the taxable person in connection with the transaction in question by the purchaser of the goods or services may serve that purpose.

(see paras 41, 42, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Taxation of energy products and electricity

–

Exemption of energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of air navigation other than private tourism

–

Extent

–

Leasing or chartering of an aircraft by an undertaking for its own commercial purposes other than the provision of a service for consideration

–

Excluded (Council Directive 2003/96, Art. 14(1)(b)) (see paras 25-26, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Finanzgericht Düsseldorf – Interpretation of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) – Extent of the exemption envisaged for energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation – Exemption of fuel provided by the owner or lessor of an aircraft, not being an airline, used by the charterers of the aircraft for their flights for commercial purposes.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption of energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than private tourism provided for by that provision cannot apply in the case of a company, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, when it leases or hires out under a charter an aircraft belonging to it with fuel to undertakings whose air navigation operations are not directly used for the supply, by those undertakings, of air services for consideration.
In the case of a State which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004, there being no derogating provisions in the Act of Accession of that State to the European Union or in any other European Union document, Article 7(1) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303, must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory exemption provided for in that provision applies only to those transactions coming within the scope of that directive, as amended, that, on 1 July 1984, were exempted, in that State, from capital duty or were subject to that duty at a reduced rate of 0.50% or less.

The first indent of Article 5(3) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, which excludes ‘the amount of the assets belonging to the capital company which are allocated to the increase in capital and which have already been subjected to capital duty’ from the amount on which duty is charged, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies irrespective of whether the assets in question are assets of the company which has had an increase in capital or assets coming from another company which have increased that capital.

A condition requiring those assets to belong to the company which has had an increase in capital would be contrary to the literal interpretation of the wording of that provision. Such a condition would also run counter to the objective pursued by that provision, which excludes those amounts which have already been subjected to capital duty from the basis of assessment for taxation in order to avoid double taxation of those amounts, with the aim of promoting the free movement of capital. The addition of a further condition to those imposed by the wording of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Directive 69/335, to the effect that the assets in question must also belong to the company which has had an increase in capital, would allow for double taxation of the same amount if the transaction in question were to involve separate companies.

(see paras 36-38, operative part 2)
As regards the definition of the respective scopes of the principles of freedom to provide services and of freedom of establishment, it must be determined whether or not the economic operator is established in the Member State in which it offers the services in question. In that context, the concept of establishment means that the operator offers its services on a stable and continuous basis from an establishment in the Member State of destination. On the other hand, every provision of services that is not offered on a stable and continuous basis from an establishment in the Member State of destination constitutes a provision of services within the meaning of Article 49 EC

No provision of the Treaty affords a means of determining, in the abstract, the duration or frequency beyond which the supply of a service or of a certain type of service can no longer be regarded as the provision of services, and accordingly services within the meaning of the Treaty may cover services varying widely in nature, including services provided over an extended period, even over several years.

Therefore, national legislation imposing certain requirements on economic operators wishing to pursue the activities of assessment, verification and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue is, in principle, capable of falling within the scope of both Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC. It would be different if, in practice, the collection of local taxes cannot be carried out without using a company established in the national territory of the Member State of destination. To the extent necessary, it would be for the referring court to determine whether this is the case.

(see paras 30-33)