ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-59/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/49/EEC – Freedom to set premiums and abolition of prior or systematic controls over premiums and contracts – Gathering of information)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 4 July 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 25 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-300/01





Doris Salzmann





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

«(Free movement of capital – Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) – Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of building plots – Purely internal situation – Article 70 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria – Concept of existing legislation – Point 1(e) of Annex XII to the EEA Agreement)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 30 January 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 15 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Manifestly irrelevant question

(Art. 234 EC)

2.. EC Treaty – Property regimes – Principle of neutrality – Limits – Subject to the fundamental rules of the Treaty – National legislation regulating the acquisition of land – Compliance with the provisions on the free movement of capital

(EC Treaty, Arts 73b and 222 (now Art. 56 EC and Art. 295 EC))

3.. Free movement of capital – Restrictions on the acquisition of immovable property – System of prior authorisation for the acquisition of building plots – Not permissible – Whether justifiable – No justification – Authorisation under the transitional measures of the 1994 Act of Accession concerning Austria – To be determined by the national court

(EC Treaty, Art. 73b (now Art. 56 EC); 1994 Act of Accession, Art. 70)

4.. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area as regards its application in the States belonging to the European Free Trade Association – Excluded

(Art. 234 EC; EEA Agreement)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Joined Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01





Proceedings brought by Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc. and Rado Uhren AG





(References for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

«(Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Grounds for refusal to register – Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) – Three-dimensional shape of product mark – Distinctive character – Preserving the availability of certain signs in the public interest)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 24 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 8 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Where registration of a trade mark may be refused or the trade mark declared invalid – Trade mark devoid of distinctive character – Determination whether a three-dimensional shape of product trade mark has a distinctive character – Application of the same criteria as for other types of mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b) and 3(3))

2.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Where registration of a trade mark may be refused or the trade mark declared invalid – Three-dimensional shape of product marks – Specific grounds for refusal in Article 3(1)(e) – Preliminary obstacle not preventing the application of the other grounds for refusing registration – Examination of the grounds for refusal in Article 3(1)(c) – Account taken of the public interest in preserving the availability of certain marks

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(c) and (e) and 3(3))

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

12 June 2003

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 76/464/EEC – Pollution of the aquatic environment – Pollution reduction programmes which include quality objectives for certain dangerous substances))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 July 2002,
Case C-108/01





Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio S. Rita SpA

v

Asda Stores Ltd and Hygrade Foods Ltd





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords (United Kingdom))

«(Protected designations of origin – Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 – Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 – Prosciutto di Parma – Specification – Requirement for ham to be sliced and packaged in the region of production – Articles 29 EC and 30 EC – Justification – Whether requirement may be relied on against third parties – Legal certainty – Publicity)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 25 April 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 20 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Uniform laws – Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs – Use of a protected designation of origin subject to the condition that operations such as slicing and packaging of the product take place in the region of production – Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 2081/92)

2.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions of experts – Measures having equivalent effect – Use of the protected designation of origin Prosciutto di Parma subject, under a Community measure, to the condition that the product is sliced and packaged in the region of production – Justification – Protection of industrial and commercial property – Measure that is necessary and proportionate and capable of upholding the reputation of the designation of origin – Whether condition may be relied on against economic operators – Not in the absence of adequate publicity

(Arts 29 EC and 30 EC; Commission Regulation No 1107/96)

1.

2.
Case C-211/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Council of the European Union





«(EC/Bulgaria and EC/Hungary Agreements – Carriage of goods by road and combined transport – Taxation – Legal basis – Articles 71 EC and 93 EC)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 13 March 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 11 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Choice of legal basis – Criteria – Community measure pursuing a twofold purpose or having a twofold component – Reference to the main or predominant purpose or component – Inseparable purposes – Joint legal basis

2.. International agreements – Conclusion – EC/Bulgaria Agreement and EC/Hungary Agreement on the carriage of goods by road and combined transport – Agreements falling principally under transport policy – Predominating over harmonisation of fiscal laws – Legal basis – Article 71 EC in conjunction with Article 300(3) EC – Conclusion on the basis of Article 93 EC – Unlawfulness

(Arts 71, 93 and 300(3) EC;EC/Bulgaria agreement; EC/Hungary Agreement)

3.. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Limitation by the Court – Case of a decision concerning the conclusion of an international agreement

(Art. 231, second para., EC; Council Decisions 2001/265 and 2001/266)

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

19 June 2003

((Public contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts – Article 1(3) – Persons to whom review procedures must be available – Definition of interest in obtaining a public contract))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Fritsch, Chiari & Partner, Ziviltechniker GmbH and Others, represented by S. Wurst, Rechtsanwalt, the Austrian Government, represented by M. Fruhmann, the French Government, represented by S. Pailler, acting as Agent, and the Commission, represented by M. Nolin, assisted by R. Roniger, at the hearing on 16 January 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 February 2003,
Case C-452/01





Proceedings brought by

Margarethe Ospelt

and

Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung







(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria))

«(Free movement of capital – Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) – Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement – Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots – Permissibility – Conditions)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 10 April 2003

Judgment of the Court, 23 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Free movement of capital – Restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots placed on nationals of Member States of the European Economic Area – Assessment in the light of the Agreement on the European Economic Area – Legal scope identical to that of Community provisions

(EC Treaty, Art. 73b (now Art. 56 EC); EEA Agreement, Art. 40 and Annex XII)

2.. Free movement of capital – Restrictions on the acquisition of immovable property – System of prior authorisation for the acquisition of farmland – Whether permissible – Limits – Conditions as to residence and involvement in farming not permissible

(Arts 73b, 73c, 73d, 73f, and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Arts 56 EC, 57 EC, 58 EC, 59 EC and 60 EC))

1.

2.
Case C-155/01





Cookies World Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH iL

v

Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria))

«(Sixth VAT Directive – Motor vehicle made available under a leasing contract – Taxable transactions – Own consumption – Article 17(6) and (7) – Exclusions provided for under national law at the date of entry into force of the directive)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 10 October 2002

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 11 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-245/01





RTL Television GmbH

v

Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)

«(Directive 89/552/EEC – Article 11(3) – Television broadcasting – Television advertising – Advertising breaks in audiovisual works – Definition of series)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 22 May 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 23 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting – Directive 89/552 – Television advertising – Frequency of advertising slots during broadcasts – Increased protection of audiovisual works – Films made for television – Meaning – Films providing, from their conception, for breaks for the insertion of advertising – Included

(Council Directive 89/552, Art. 11(3))

2.. Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting – Directive 89/552 – Television advertising – Frequency of advertising slots during broadcasts – Increased protection of audiovisual works – Exception for series – Criteria

(Council Directive 89/552, Art. 11(3))

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

16 October 2003

((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 96/98/EC – Marine equipment – Free movement of goods – Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions – Obligation to be in possession of a certificate of conformity issued by a recognised national body – Non-recognition of tests carried out by bodies recognised in other Member States))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

20 November 2003

((Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of workers' rights – Directive 77/187/EEC – Scope – Definition of transfer))

In Case C-340/01,

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Sodexho MM Catering Gesellschaft mbH, represented by G. Loibner, of Sanrest Großküchen Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, represented by A. Walchshofer, Rechtsanwalt, and of the Commission, represented by J. Sack, at the hearing on 15 May 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 19 June 2003,
Case C-45/01





Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie

v

Finanzamt Gießen





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany))

«(VAT – Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Exemption – Psychotherapeutic treatment given in an out-patient facility provided by a foundation governed by private law (charitable establishment) employing qualified psychologists who are not doctors – Direct effect)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 10 December 2002

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for hospital and medical care and closely related activities – Concept of closely related activities and medical care – Psychotherapeutic treatment given by qualified psychologists

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(b) and (c))

2.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for hospital and medical care and closely related activities – Concept of other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature – Recognition subject to services being provided under medical supervision – Not permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(b))

3.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for hospital and medical care and closely related activities – Concept of other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature – Member States' discretion – Limits – Duties of national courts

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(b))

4.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions – Scope – Treatment provided by practitioners employed by a foundation governed by private law – Covered

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(c))

5.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for hospital and medical care and closely related activities and exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions – Possibility for taxable persons to rely on the corresponding provisions

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(b) and (c))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

15 January 2004

((Brussels Convention – Special rules of jurisdiction – Article 5(2) – Maintenance – Action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance creditor))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 April 2003,
Case C-448/01





EVN AG and Wienstrom GmbH

v

Republic of Austria





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria))

«(Directive 93/36/EEC – Public supply contracts – Concept of the most economically advantageous tender – Award criterion giving preference to electricity produced from renewable energy sources – Directive 89/665/EEC – Public procurement review proceedings – Unlawful decisions – Possibility of annulment only in the case of material influence on the outcome of the tender procedure – Illegality of an award criterion – Obligation to cancel the invitation to tender)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 27 February 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 4 December 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Award of contracts – Most economically advantageous tender – Criteria – Supply of electricity from renewable energy sources – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Directive 93/36, Art. 26)

2.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Finding of illegality of an award criterion by the review body – Obligation to cancel the invitation to tender

(Council Directive 89/665)

1.

2.
Case C-341/01

Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH

v

Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH

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

(Directive 94/62/EC – Packaging and packaging waste – Plastic carrier bags – National legislation on the collection and recovery of used packaging and packaging waste – Collection and recovery of used packaging and packaging waste – Obligation to use an authorised undertaking or to organise a collection system – Admissibility)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Environment – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Packaging – Definition – Plastic carrier bags – Included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 3(1))

2. Environment – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Producer – Definition

(European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 3(1)

1. Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste must be interpreted as meaning that the plastic carrier bags handed to customers in shops, whether free of charge or not, constitute packaging within the meaning of the directive since those plastic bags are intended to contain the goods purchased by customers and are designed to facilitate the transport of sales units in order to prevent physical handling and transport damage, they meet the two conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of the directive. Their exclusion from the definition of packaging would, first, run counter to a broad interpretation of that term and, second, would be likely to impede the attainment of the aims of the directive, which seeks to prevent and reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment of Member States and non-member countries and thus to provide a high level of environmental protection.

(see paras 52-53, 55-57, 59, operative part 1)

2. In the context of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste ‘producer’ refers to the producer of the goods, not the manufacturer of the packaging products.

(see para. 74, operative part 2)
Case C-17/01

Finanzamt Sulingen

v

Walter Sudholz

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2000/186/EC – Flat-rate limit on the right to deduct VAT on vehicles not used solely for business purposes – Retroactive authorisation of a national tax measure)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Special derogating measures – Decision 2000/186 authorising a flat-rate limit on the right to deduct – Breach of the adoption procedure or of substantive requirements – Absence – Retroactive effect – Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 27; Council Decision 2000/186, Arts 2 and 3)

Decision 2000/186 authorising the Federal Republic of Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6 and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, adopted on the basis of Article 27 of that directive, is intended, inter alia, to limit to 50% the right to deduct the value added tax charged on expenditure on vehicles not used exclusively for business purposes.

The fact that that decision was adopted after derogating measures had been taken by the German authorities, that the Federal Republic of Germany did not publish its request for authorisation to introduce those measures and that the Council inferred from the terms in which the request for authorisation was couched that its intended objective was to simplify the procedure for charging the tax without that objective having been expressly referred to in that request, does not render the procedure leading to the adoption of the decision irregular.

Moreover, Article 2 of that decision, which authorises a flat-rate limit on permitted deductions, set at 50% of the amount paid by way of input value added tax, meets the substantive requirements of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive. In particular, the Council was entitled to consider that that limitation constituted a necessary and appropriate means of preventing tax evasion and avoidance and of simplifying the procedures for charging value added tax.

By contrast, insofar as it provides for the authorisation granted by the Council to the Federal Republic of Germany to have retroactive effect, Article 3 of Decision 2000/186 infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and is therefore invalid. That provision authorised the introduction of a national derogating measure imposing a limit on the deduction of the tax before that measure had been authorised by the Council and at a time when those concerned were entitled to continue to believe that the rule that whole of the tax could be deducted was applicable.





(see paras 23, 25, 30-31, 39-41, 43, 60, 70, operative part 1-3)
Keywords



Keywords

1. 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 — (Art. 226 EC)

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

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Recognition of diplomas and evidence of qualifications — University education and training awarded in a Member State by an educational establishment which has made an agreement with a university established in another Member State — Refusal of the first Member State to recognise diplomas issued by that university attesting to that education and training — Not permissible — (Art. 43 EC)

Summary

An administrative practice under which degrees awarded by a university of one Member State cannot be recognised in another Member State when the courses of preparation for those degrees were provided in the latter Member State by another educational establishment in accordance with an agreement made between the two establishments is incompatible with Article 43 EC.

see para. 51, operative part