ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Interim assistance granted to workers in the event of dismissal – Notional deduction, for workers resident and chargeable to tax in another Member State, of income tax theoretically due in the Member State of employment – Not permissible – Justification – None

(Art. 39 EC; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(4))

Summary

Articles 39 EC and 7(4) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community preclude national legislation provided for in a collective agreement under which the amount of a social benefit such as a interim assistance by way of unemployment benefit granted to workers in the event of dismissal, which is paid by the Member State of employment to a worker who resides and chargeable to tax in another Member State, is calculated in such a way that the tax on wages payable in the Member State of employment is notionally deducted on determination of the basis of assessment of that benefit, even though, under a double taxation agreement, salaries, wages and analogous emoluments paid to workers not residing in that State are chargeable to tax only in the Member State in which such workers are resident.

The administrative difficulties for the Member State of employment which would stem from the application of different methods of assessment of that assistance depending on the place of residence of the person concerned and the budgetary consequences of the failure to take into account of national wage tax cannot justify that Member State’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Treaty.

(see paras 29-30, 37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Decisions of OHIM – Compliance with the principle of due process

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character – Recognition of a colour per se as having distinctive character – Acquisition in consequence of use

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3))

Summary

1. In accordance with the second sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, decisions of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) may be based only on matters of fact or of law on which the parties have been able to set out their views.

Consequently, in the case in which the Board of Appeal assembles of its own motion facts intended to serve as a basis for its decision, it is under an obligation to notify the parties of those facts in order that the parties may submit their views thereon.

(see paras 42-43)

2. While a colour per se may acquire, for the goods or services in respect of which registration of a Community trade mark is sought, a distinctive character in consequence of the use which has been made of it, by virtue of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, in the case of a colour per se, distinctiveness without any prior use, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation, is inconceivable save in exceptional circumstances, in particular where the number of goods or services for which the mark is claimed is very restricted and the relevant market very specific.

(see para. 79)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste – Waste for recovery – Notification procedure applicable to shipments between Member States – System for objections raised against a shipment – National measure justifying objections based only on the extent of recovery – Not permissible – Justification – None

(Council Regulation No 259/93, Art. 7(4)( a), fifth indent)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 on waste – Annex IIB – Distinction between disposal operations and recovery operations – Classification as recovery operation – Conditions

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350, Annex IIB, point R1)

Summary

1. The fifth indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, pursuant to which the competent authorities of destination and dispatch may raise reasoned objections to a planned shipment of waste for recovery if the ratio of the recoverable and non‑recoverable waste, the estimated value of the materials to be finally recovered or the cost of the recovery and the cost of the disposal of the non-recoverable fraction do not justify the recovery from the economic and environmental point of view, precludes national rules on shipments of waste which refer only, for the purposes of making that assessment, to the first of those three criteria, namely the ratio of recoverable and non‑recoverable waste. That provision also precludes national rules on shipments of waste which refer only for the purposes of making that assessment to a comparison of the percentage of recoverable waste in the States of destination and dispatch. It is irrelevant in that regard that the competent national authorities retain the power to assess each application to ship on a case-by-case basis or that the rules on shipments in question apply both to imports and exports of waste and seek to achieve the highest possible degree of recovery in the Community.

(see paras 17-21, 23-25)

2. The use of waste as a fuel is a recovery operation of the kind referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB to Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Decision 96/350, provided that three conditions are satisfied. First, the essential purpose of the operation referred to must be the generation of energy. Secondly, the energy generated by, and recovered from, combustion of the waste must be greater than the amount of energy consumed during the combustion process and that part of the surplus energy generated during combustion must effectively be used, either immediately in the form of the heat produced by incineration or, after processing, in the form of electricity. Thirdly, the greater part of the waste must be consumed during the operation and the greater part of the energy generated must be recovered and used.

Criteria such as the calorific value of the waste, the amount of harmful substances contained in the incinerated waste or whether or not the waste has been mixed cannot, by contrast, be taken into consideration.

(see paras 31-32)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport – Air transport – Access to the groundhandling market at Community airports – Power of the Member States to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of undertakings providing groundhandling services – Limits

(Council Directive 96/67)

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23 – Transfer – Meaning – National provision guaranteeing that existing employment levels are to be maintained and that labour relations with staff under the previous management arrangements are to be continued where there is the transfer of an activity irrespective of the nature of the transaction concerned – Excluded

(Council Directive 2001/23)

Summary

1. The power to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of undertakings providing groundhandling services, which the Member States retain under Directive 96/67 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, does not confer an unlimited jurisdiction and must be exercised in a manner that does not prejudice the effectiveness of that directive and the objectives it pursues. The aim of the directive is to ensure the opening up of the groundhandling market which must help, in particular, to reduce the operating costs of airlines.

(see paras 31-32)

2. A national provision which guarantees that existing employment levels are to be maintained and that labour relations with staff under the previous management arrangements are to be continued which applies, irrespective of the nature of the transaction concerned, to any ‘transfer of activity’ in the sector in question plainly goes beyond the concept of transfer laid down by Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, as interpreted by the Court. It is only by having regard to the specific characteristics of each transfer of activity that it is possible to determine whether the transaction concerned constitutes a transfer for the purposes of the directive.

(see paras 41-42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Harmonisation of laws – Criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae – Decision 92/353 – Right of the national authorities to refuse approval or recognition – No personal right for pre-existing association or organisation to obtain from those authorities a refusal to approve or recognise a new association or organisation

(Commission Decision 92/353, Art. 2(2), first indent)

Summary

The first indent of Article 2(2) of Decision 92/353 laying down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae provides that the competent authorities of a Member State may refuse to recognise a new organisation or association if it would endanger the preservation of that breed or jeopardise the operation or the improvement or selection programme of the organisation or association already in existence. That article cannot be interpreted as meaning that it gives such an association or organisation a personal right to demand of the competent authorities concerned that they should refuse the recognition or approval requested by a new association or organisation when it is proved that at least one of the circumstances referred to in that provision exists. Indeed, if such an interpretation were to be accepted, it would amount to doing away with the discretion that Article 2(2) of Decision 92/353 meant to leave to the competent authorities of the Member States.

In those circumstances, it is not contrary to Community law for the legislation of a Member State to deprive associations and organisations already in existence, which have submitted observations opposing the recognition of a new association or organisation, of a judicial means of obtaining redress challenging the competent national authorities’ decision to grant recognition.

(see paras 35-37, 40, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the proceedings — Request seeking to have a Member State ordered to take specific measures — Inadmissible

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Free movement of goods — Community transit — External Community transit — Offences or irregularities — Member States’ obligations — Non-compliance with time-limits fixed for the procedures for collecting import duties — Establishment and late making available of own resources — Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Regulations Nos 1552/89, Art. 2, and 2913/92, Arts 218(3) and 221(1))

Summary

1. The purpose of an action under Article 226 EC is to obtain a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its Community obligations. When there is a finding of infringement, Article 228 EC expressly requires the Member State in question to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice. The Court cannot, however, order the Member State to take specific measures.

Consequently, the Court cannot, in the context of infringement proceedings, rule on pleas which seek an order that the Member State pay default interest. Such claims must be declared inadmissible.

(see paras 49-51)

2. In the case of customs debts incurred following irregularities committed in the external Community transit system, it is clear from the wording itself of the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, that the Member States are obliged to instigate the recovery procedure provided for therein upon expiry of the three-month time-limit when notified by the office of departure that the consignment has not been presented on time at the office of destination. That interpretation is also necessary in order to guarantee diligent and uniform application by the competent authorities of the provisions governing recovery of customs debts, with a view to making Community own resources available efficiently and speedily.

Late communication by a Member State of the amount of the debt to the principal, in violation of Articles 218(3) and 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, necessarily implies a delay in the establishment of the Community’s entitlement to the own resources referred to in Article 2 of Regulation No 1552/89 implementing Decision 88/376 on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

(see paras 78, 89, 91, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Principle of equal treatment of imports from different countries – Scope as regards products from different countries all subject to dumping but some subject to a procedure for review of a definitive duty and others to an initial investigation

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 5, 9(5), and 11(2))

Summary

There is an objective difference between the initial investigation procedure intended to establish whether there is a practice of dumping and the procedure for review of an anti-dumping measure which is about to expire. Whereas imports subject to a review proceeding are those on which definitive anti-dumping duties have already been imposed and in respect of which sufficient evidence has generally been adduced to establish that the expiry of those measures would probably result in the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, where imports are subject to an initial investigation, the purpose of that investigation is precisely to determine the existence, the degree and the effect of any alleged dumping even if the initiation of such an investigation presupposes the existence of sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of that procedure.

It follows that the collection of anti-dumping duty until the conclusion of the review procedure to which it is subject, although no duty of that type is collected during the same period on comparable products originating in a country for which an initial investigation is conducted, does not constitute an infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Moreover, the Council is not obliged to refrain from applying Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation No 384/96, providing for the continued collection of anti-dumping duty pending the outcome of the review, under the principle of non-discrimination set out in Article 9(5) of that regulation. The principle laid down by that provision does not require the Council, where it decides to terminate a review proceeding on the ground that no definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed on imports in a comparable situation to those subject to review but coming from other sources and having been subject to an initial investigation, to restore absolute equality of treatment as regards the collection of import duty on imports in those different situations.

(see paras 50-52)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Trade marks in respect of services — Concept of ‘services’ — Community concept — Uniform interpretation

(Council Directive 89/104)

2. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Trade marks in respect of services — Concept of ‘services’ — Retail trade in goods — Included — Requirements for registration

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 2)

Summary

1. It falls to the Court to supply a uniform interpretation of the concept of ‘services’ within the meaning of Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

Determination of the nature and content of the service eligible for protection by a registered trade mark is subject, not to the provisions on registration procedures, in regard to which the Member States retain full freedom, but to the substantive conditions for acquiring the right conferred by the trade mark. Moreover, if the concept of ‘services’ were a matter for the Member States, conditions for the registration of service trade marks could vary according to the national legislation concerned. Therefore, the objective that acquisition of the right in the trade mark should be subject to ‘conditions … identical’ in all Member States would not be attained.

(see paras 30-33)

2. The concept of ‘services’ within the meaning of Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks covers services provided in connection with retail trade in goods. No overriding reason based on the directive or on general principles of Community law precludes those services from being covered by the concept of ‘services’ within the meaning of the directive or, therefore, the trader from having the right to obtain, through the registration of his trade mark, protection of that mark as an indication of the origin of the services provided by him.

For the purposes of registration of a trade mark for such services, it is not necessary to specify in detail the service(s) in question. However, details must be provided with regard to the goods or types of goods to which those services relate.

(see paras 35, 39, 52, operative part 1-2)
Case C-72/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Portuguese Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and wild birds)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 6 March 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 24 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-211/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 97/66/EC within the prescribed periods)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 10 December 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 6 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. 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 by the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)
Case C-348/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations ? Failure to transpose Directive 1999/13/EC)

«Compétence judiciaire, reconnaissance et exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale — Règlement (CE) nº 44/2001 — Reconnaissance et exécution — Article 34, point 2 — Décision rendue par défaut — Motif de refus — Notion de défendeur défaillant 'en mesure' d'exercer un recours contre la décision — Défaut de signification et de notification de celle-ci.»

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 2 October 2003

Summary of the Judgment

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations ? Examination of merits by the Court ? Situation to be taken into consideration ? Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

43-47, 49 et disp.)
Case C-433/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Belgium





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/100/EEC – Copyright – Remuneration of authors in the event of public lending of their literary or artistic works)»

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-60/02





Criminal proceedings

against

X





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria))

«(Counterfeit and pirated goods – No criminal penalty for the transit of counterfeit goods – Compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 3295/94)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 5 June 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Common commercial policy – Measures designed to prevent the marketing of counterfeit and pirated goods – Regulation No 3295/94 – Scope – Goods in external transit – Included

(Council Regulation No 3295/94, Arts. 2 and 11)

2.. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Implementation by the Member States – Duty to interpret national law so as to be compatible with Community law – Limits – Principle of non-retroactivity of criminal offences and penalties

1.

2.
Joined Cases C-78/02 to C-80/02





Elliniko Dimosio

v

Maria Karageorgou and Others





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece))

«(Sixth VAT Directive – Article 21(1)(c) – Persons liable to tax – Person mentioning the tax on an invoice – Tax paid in error by a non-taxable person and included in the invoice established by that person)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 15 May 2003

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons – Persons providing services to the State under an employer-employee relationship – Excluded – Provider unaware of that relationship – Establishment of an invoice mentioning an amount of value added tax – Amount not to be so categorised

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

2.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Adjustment of tax improperly invoiced – Amount mentioned as value added tax on an invoice following a mistake as to the categorisation of the service provided – Reimbursement of the amount not precluded by Article 21(1)(c) of Directive 77/388

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 21(1)(c))

1.

2.