ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
24

In those circumstances, the Varhoven administrativen sad (Administrative Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is Article 63 of [the VAT Directive] to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit a derogation where the chargeable event relating to the performance of work for the construction of certain individual properties in a building occurs before the actual performance of the construction work and that that chargeable event is linked to the time of the occurrence of the chargeable event relating to the transaction to be performed in return, which consists in the establishment of a building right relating to other properties in that building, which also forms the consideration for the construction work? 2. Is a national provision which provides that, whenever the consideration is made up entirely or partly of goods or services, the taxable amount for the transaction is to be the open market value of the goods or services supplied, compatible with Articles 73 and 80 of [the VAT Directive]? 3. Is Article 65 of [the VAT Directive] to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit VAT to be charged on the value of a payment on account in cases where the payment is not made in the form of money, or is that provision to be interpreted broadly, to the effect that VAT is also chargeable in such cases and that it is to be charged at the level of the financial equivalent of the transaction performed in return? 4. If, in the third question, the second variant given is correct, can the building right established in the present case be regarded, in view of the specific circumstances, as a payment on account within the meaning of Article 65 of [the VAT Directive]? 5. Do Articles 63, 65 and 73 of [the VAT Directive] have direct effect?’
30

The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court: ‘(1) Is it in accordance with the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and in Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71], and with the wording of [Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71], to interpret that annex … to the effect that, for the calculation of the theoretical Spanish benefit carried out on the basis of the actual contributions of the insured person, during the years immediately preceding payment of the last contribution to the Spanish social security, the sum thus obtained is divided by 210, that divisor being established by the calculation of the basis for determination of the retirement pension in accordance with Article 162(1) of the LGSS? (2) If the first question should be answered in the negative: Is it in accordance with the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71], and [Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to that regulation], to interpret the said annex to the effect that, for the calculation of the theoretical Spanish benefit carried out on the basis of the actual contributions of the insured person, during the years immediately preceding payment of the last contribution to the Spanish social security, the sum thus obtained is divided by the number of years of contribution in Spain? (3) In the event of a negative response to the second question and whatever the answer to the first question: Is [paragraph 2(a) (Spain), of Annex XI] to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 … applicable by analogy, in the case described in these proceedings, with the aim of satisfying the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71], and, as a result, is it possible to cover the contribution period in Portugal with the basis of contributions in Spain closest in time to that period, taking into account the evolution of consumer prices?[ (4) If the first, second and third questions are all answered in the negative: What, if none of the previously mentioned interpretations were held to be wholly or partly correct, would be the interpretation of [Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71] that, being useful for the resolution of the dispute described in these proceedings, is most in accordance with the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71] and with Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI]?’
17

As regards arsenic compounds, Annex XVII states, in point 19, column 2, concerning ‘Conditions of restriction’: ‘… 3. Shall not be used in the preservation of wood. Furthermore, wood so treated shall not be placed on the market. 4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3: (a) Relating to the substances and mixtures for the preservation of wood: these may only be used in industrial installations using vacuum or pressure to impregnate wood if they are solutions of inorganic compounds of the copper, chromium, arsenic (CCA) type C and if they are authorised in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 98/8/EC. Wood so treated shall not be placed on the market before fixation of the preservative is completed. (b) Wood treated with CCA solution in accordance with point (a) may be placed on the market for professional and industrial use provided that the structural integrity of the wood is required for human or livestock safety and skin contact by the general public during its service life is unlikely: — as structural timber in public and agricultural buildings, office buildings, and industrial premises, — in bridges and bridgework, … — as electric power transmission and telecommunications poles, … (d) Treated wood referred to under point (a) shall not be used: — in residential or domestic constructions, whatever the purpose, — in any application where there is a risk of repeated skin contact, … 5. Wood treated with arsenic compounds that was in use in the Community before 30 September 2007, or that was placed on the market in accordance with paragraph 4 may remain in place and continue to be used until it reaches the end of its service life. 6. Wood treated with CCA type C that was in use in the Community before 30 September 2007, or that was placed on the market in accordance with paragraph 4: — may be used or reused subject to the conditions pertaining to its use listed under points 4(b), (c) and (d), — may be placed on the market subject to the conditions pertaining to its use listed under points 4(b), (c) and (d). 7. Member States may allow wood treated with other types of CCA solutions that was in use in the Community before 30 September 2007: — to be used or reused subject to the conditions pertaining to its use listed under points 4(b), (c) and (d), — to be placed on the market subject to the conditions pertaining to its use listed under points 4(b), (c) and (d).’
4

Article 3 of the directive, which defines its scope, provides: ‘1. An environmental assessment, in accordance with Articles 4 to 9, shall be carried out for plans and programmes referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4 which are likely to have significant environmental effects. 2. Subject to paragraph 3, an environmental assessment shall be carried out for all plans and programmes: (a) which are prepared for … town and country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 85/337/EEC [of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5)]; … … 3. Plans and programmes referred to in paragraph 2 which determine the use of small areas at local level … shall require an environmental assessment only where the Member States determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects. 4. Member States shall determine whether plans and programmes, other than those referred to in paragraph 2, which set the framework for future development consent of projects, are likely to have significant environmental effects. 5. Member States shall determine whether plans or programmes referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 are likely to have significant environmental effects either through case-by-case examination or by specifying types of plans and programmes or by combining both approaches. For this purpose Member States shall in all cases take into account relevant criteria set out in Annex II, in order to ensure that plans and programmes with likely significant effects on the environment are covered by this Directive. …’
14

Article 40 of the German Code on foodstuffs, consumer items and animal feed (Lebensmittel- Bedarfsgegenstände- und Futtermittelgesetzbuch), dated 1 September 2005 (BGB1. 2005 I, p. 2618), corrected on 18 October 2005 (BGB1. 2005 I, p. 3007), in the version in force from 17 September 2005 to 24 April 2006 (‘the LFGB’), provided: ‘(1) Within the framework of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the competent authority may inform the public of the name of the food or animal feed and the name or trade name of the food or animal feed manufacturer, processor or distributor; where doing so is better able to prevent risks, it may also release the name of the operator responsible for placing on the market. A public information measure, within the meaning of and in accordance with the above rules, may also be taken in the following cases: … 4. where food, which is not injurious to health but is unfit for human consumption, in particular because it is nauseating, is or has been distributed in significant quantities or where, because of its specificity, it has been distributed only in small quantities but over a relatively lengthy period of time, … In the cases described in points 2 to 5 above, the public may be informed only if there is a particular public interest in doing so which outweighs the interests of the relevant parties. (2) The authorities may inform the public only if other equally effective measures, in particular public information measures taken by the food or feed manufacturer or the economic operators, are not taken or not taken in time or do not reach consumers. (3) Before the authorities inform the public, they must give the producer or trader an opportunity to set out his views, unless such a hearing jeopardises attainment of the objective pursued by the measures in question. (4) There is no further need to inform the public where the product is no longer on the market or where, in the light of experience, it can be assumed that those products which were marketed have already been consumed. By way of derogation from the first sentence, information may be issued to the public where there is or has been an actual threat to health and it appears sensible to provide information in view of medical measures being taken. (5) If it subsequently transpires that the information given to the public by the authorities was wrong or that the circumstances were misrepresented, the public must be informed of the error immediately where the operator concerned makes a request to that effect or where the public interest requires it. This announcement should be made in the same manner as that of the public information to which it relates.’
7

Article 17 of the Sixth Directive provides: ‘1. The right to deduct shall arise at the time the deductible tax becomes chargeable. 2. In so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of his taxable transactions, the taxable person shall be entitled to deduct from the tax which he is liable to pay: (a) [VAT] due or paid in respect of goods or services supplied or to be supplied to him by another taxable person; (b) [VAT] due or paid in respect of imported goods; (c) [VAT] due under Articles 5(7)(a) and 6(3). 3. Member States shall also grant every taxable person the right to a deduction or refund of the [VAT] referred to in paragraph 2 in so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of: (a) transactions relating to the economic activities referred to in Article 4(2), carried out in another country, which would be eligible for deduction of tax if they had occurred in the territory of the country; (b) transactions which are exempt under Article 14(1)(i) and under Articles 15 and 16(1)(B), (C) and (D), and paragraph 2; (c) any of the transactions exempted under Article 13B(a) and (d), paragraphs 1 to 5, when the customer is established outside the Community or when these transactions are directly linked with goods intended to be exported to a country outside the Community. … 5. As regards goods and services to be used by a taxable person both for transactions covered by paragraphs 2 and 3, in respect of which [VAT] is deductible, and for transactions in respect of which [VAT] is not deductible, only such proportion of the [VAT] shall be deductible as is attributable to the former transactions. This proportion shall be determined, in accordance with Article 19, for all the transactions carried out by the taxable person. However, Member States may: (a) authorise the taxable person to determine a proportion for each sector of his business, provided that separate accounts are kept for each sector; (b) compel the taxable person to determine a proportion for each sector of his business and to keep separate accounts for each sector; (c) authorise or compel the taxable person to make the deduction on the basis of the use made of all or part of the goods and services; (d) authorise or compel the taxable person to make the deduction in accordance with the rule laid down in the first subparagraph, in respect of all goods and services used for all transactions referred to therein; (e) provide that, where the [VAT] which is not deductible by the taxable person is insignificant, it shall be treated as nil. …’
7

Article 20 of the Sixth Directive provides: ‘1. The initial deduction shall be adjusted according to the procedures laid down by the Member States, in particular: (a) where that deduction was higher or lower than that to which the taxable person was entitled; (b) where after the return is made some change occurs in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted, in particular where purchases are cancelled or price reductions are obtained; however, adjustment shall not be made in cases of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid and of destruction, loss or theft of property duly proved or confirmed, nor in the case of applications for the purpose of making gifts of small value and giving samples specified in Article 5(6). However, Member States may require adjustment in cases of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid and of theft. ... 3. In the case of supply during the period of adjustment capital goods shall be regarded as if they had still been applied for business use by the taxable person until expiry of the period of adjustment. Such business activities are presumed to be fully taxed in cases where the delivery of the said goods is taxed; they are presumed to be fully exempt where the delivery is exempt. The adjustment shall be made only once for the whole period of adjustment still to be covered. However, in the latter case, Member States may waive the requirement for adjustment in so far as the purchaser is a taxable person using the capital goods in question solely for transactions in respect of which [VAT] is deductible. 4. For the purposes of applying the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, Member States may: ... — adopt any suitable measures with a view to ensuring that adjustment does not involve any unjustified advantage, — permit administrative simplifications. ...’
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Conformity of the order for reference with the rules of judicial organisation and procedure in domestic law — Not a matter for the Court to determine

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Assessment of the need for and the relevance of the questions referred

(Art. 267 TFEU)

3. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Differences between the various language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules at issue taken into account

4. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation — Derogation from a general rule — Restrictive interpretation — Limit — Effectiveness of that derogation

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 199(1)(g))

5. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Persons liable to pay the tax — Compulsory sale procedure — Concept — sale of immovable property carried out in liquidation proceedings — Insolvency proceedings occurring before liquidation proceedings — Included — Condition

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 199(1)(g))

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 14)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 15)

3. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 22)

4. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 31)

5. Article 199(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that every sale of immovable property by a judgment debtor carried out not only in the course of the liquidation of the debtor’s assets but also in the course of insolvency proceedings occurring before such liquidation falls within the concept of a compulsory sale procedure, provided that such a sale is necessary in order either to settle creditors’ claims or to enable the debtor to re-establish its economic or professional activities.

(see para. 32, operative part)
In the area of competition, as regards the concept of a decision of an associations of undertakings, which is relevant under Article 101 TFEU, even a price recommendation, whatever its exact legal status, may be regarded as constituting such a decision. In the present case, the fact that the code of conduct of a professional association, such as the professional association of geologists, is binding and that it is possible to impose penalties on geologists in the event of non-compliance with that code must lead to the conclusion that the rules laid down therein constitute a decision under Article 101 TFEU.

Rules such as those laid down by a code of conduct which establish as criteria for determining the remuneration of geologists, in addition to the quality and scale of the work to be performed, the dignity of the profession, constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU which may have the effect of restricting competition within the internal market. It is for the national court to assess, in the light of the overall context in which such a code produces its effects, including the national legal framework in its entirety and the manner in which that code is applied in practice by the National Association of Geologists, whether that effect is produced in the present case. That court must also verify whether, in the light of all the relevant material before it, the rules of that code, in particular in so far as they apply the criterion based on the dignity of the profession, may be regarded as necessary for the implementation of the legitimate objective of providing guarantees to consumers of geologists’ services, considering, inter alia, that that criterion is but one of a number of criteria for determining remuneration that are closely linked to the quality of geologists’ work, such as the scale and difficulty of the task to be performed, technical knowledge and the commitment required.

(see paras 55, 57, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Transactions comprising several elements — Transaction which must be regarded as a single supply

(Council Directive 2006/112)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes — Supply of storage — Exclusion from the scope of Article 47 of Directive 2006/112 — Conditions

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 47)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 20-22)

2. Article 47 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2008/8 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a complex storage service, comprising admission of goods to a warehouse, placing them on the appropriate storage shelves, storing them, packaging them, issuing them, unloading and loading them, falls within the scope of that article only if the storage constitutes the principal service of a single transaction and only if the recipients of that service are given a right to use all or part of expressly specific immovable property.

In that regard, in so far as a large number of services are connected in one way or another with immovable property, it is necessary that the supply of services relate to the immovable property itself. That is the case, inter alia, where expressly specific immovable property must be considered to be a constituent element of a supply of services, in that it constitutes a central and essential element thereof.

(see paras 35, 39, operative part)
A general tax regime which provides that losses sustained by a company during the course of a tax year may be carried forward and deducted from profits made in later tax years, that losses cannot be carried forward after a change of ownership and that, in some cases, the competent authorities may not authorise derogation from that prohibition, may satisfy the condition of selectivity as an element of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if it were to be established that the reference system, namely the normal system, consists in a prohibition on the deduction of losses in the case of a change of ownership, in relation to which the authorisation procedure would constitute an exception. Such a regime may be justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it forms part, but justification is not possible if the competent national authorities, so far as concerns authorisation to derogate from the prohibition on the deduction of losses, have a discretion which empowers them to base authorisation decisions on criteria unrelated to that tax regime.

A measure which constitutes an exception to the application of the general tax system may be justified if the Member State concerned can show that that measure results directly from the basic or guiding principles of its tax system. Such justification is possible if, under the authorisation procedure, the degree of latitude of the competent authorities is limited to verifying the conditions laid down in order to pursue an identifiable tax objective and the criteria to be applied by those authorities are inherent in the nature of the tax regime. On the other hand, if the competent authorities have a broad discretion to determine the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided on the basis of criteria unrelated to the tax system, such as maintaining employment, the exercise of that discretion must then be regarded as favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued, are in a comparable factual and legal situation. In this context, the application of a regional development or social cohesion policy cannot in itself enable a measure adopted within the framework of that policy to be regarded as justified by the nature and general scheme of a national tax system.

(see paras 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, operative part 1)