ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
It follows from point (1) of Article 2 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 2003/92, that it is supplies of goods or services that are subject to value added tax, rather than payments made by way of consideration for such supplies. However, under the second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive, where a payment is to be made on account, the VAT may become chargeable without the supply’s having yet taken place, provided that all the relevant information concerning the chargeable event — namely, the future delivery or future performance — are already known.

Point (1) of Article 2 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 2003/92, must be interpreted as meaning that a telecommunications services operator which offers telecommunications services consisting in selling to a distributor phonecards which display all the information necessary for making international telephone calls by means of the infrastructure provided by that operator and which are resold by the distributor, in its name and on its own behalf, to end users, either directly or through other taxable persons such as wholesalers or retailers, carries out a supply of telecommunications services for consideration to the distributor. On the other hand, that operator does not carry out a second supply of services for consideration, this time to the end user, where that user, having purchased the phonecard, exercises the right to make telephone calls using the information on the card.

In the circumstances in which the telecommunications services operator receives only one actual payment in the course of supplying its telecommunications services, it cannot be treated as carrying out two supplies of services for consideration for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Sixth Directive, one to the distributor and one to the end user. The recipient of the sole supply of services made for consideration by that operator is the person which is linked to that operator by a legal relationship in the course of which there is reciprocal performance. In that regard, it cannot be held that, by its payment to the telecommunications services operator, the distributor transfers to the telecommunications services operator only the remuneration paid by the end user, and thereby creates a direct link between operator and end user. On the contrary, there is reciprocal performance between the telecommunications services operator and the distributor at the time of the initial sale of the phonecards to the distributor.

(see paras 31-33, 39, 41, 43, operative part)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation No 1346/2000 — Temporal application — Recognition of a decision opening insolvency proceedings — Decision producing its effects, recognised in the Member State of the opening of proceedings, in a State which became a Member of the European Union from the date of its accession

(Accession Act 2003, Art. 2; Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Arts 16(1) and 17(1) and (43))
A Head of State holding the nationality of a Member State unquestionably enjoys the status of citizen of the Union which confers, in accordance with Article 21 TFEU, a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down by the Treaties and the measures adopted for their implementation.

Such limitations may also be based on the relevant rules of international law, since international law is part of the European Union legal order.

Thus, in so far as, on the basis of customary rules of general international law and those of multilateral agreements, the Head of State enjoys a particular status in international relations which entails, inter alia, privileges and immunities, such a specific character is capable of distinguishing the person who enjoys that status from all other Union citizens, with the result that that person’s access to the territory of another Member State is not governed by the same conditions as those applicable to other citizens.

Accordingly, the specific character of Head of State is such as to justify a limitation, based on international law, on the exercise of the right of free movement conferred on that person by Article 21 TFEU.

(see paras 42-44, 46, 50, 51)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 – Commission v France

(Case C-35/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/21/EC – Protection of the environment – Waste management – Mining extraction – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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 in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/21) (see paras 15-17)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 18)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by its incorrect and incomplete transposition of 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 2002/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 March 2002, and 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/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under, in particular, Articles 6, 8, 15, 16 and 17 of Directive 73/129, as amended by Directive 2002/13, and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Directive 92/49;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that asbestos-cement waste is treated in suitable landfills, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(e), the first subparagraph of Article 3 and Article 6(d) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste and the provisions of the Annex to Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31;
17

Jadecloud-Vilma appealed against the decision of the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas of 5 November 2009 to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania), which decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice in [Case 133/78] Gourdain [[1979] ECR 733] and in [Case C-339/07] Seagon [[2009] ECR I-767], do Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 and Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 have to be interpreted in such a way that: (a) a national court hearing insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings or is closely connected with them, and exceptions to such jurisdiction can be founded only on other provisions of Regulation No 1346/2000; (b) an actio Pauliana by the sole creditor of an undertaking in respect of which insolvency proceedings have been initiated in one Member State, that: — is brought in another Member State, — arises from a right of claim against third parties assigned to him by the liquidator on the basis of an agreement for consideration, restricting in that way the extent of the liquidator’s claims in the first Member State, and — does not give rise to a danger for other possible creditors, is to be classified as a civil and commercial matter under Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001? 2. Does an applicant’s right to a judicial remedy, which is recognised by the Court of Justice as a general principle of European Union law and which is guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, have to be understood and interpreted in such a way that: (a) the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana (depending upon its connection with the insolvency proceedings) either under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 or under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 cannot both decline jurisdiction; (b) where a court of one Member State has decided to leave an actio Pauliana unheard for want of jurisdiction, a court of another Member State, seeking to safeguard the applicant’s right to a court, has the right to find of its own motion that it itself has jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that according to the provisions of European Union law concerning the determination of international jurisdiction it cannot so decide?’
11

Article 2 of the Royal Decree states: ‘The following categories of posted self-employed workers shall be excluded from application of Chapter 8, Title IV, of the [Programme Law]: 1. a self-employed worker posted in Belgium for the initial assembly and/or first installation of equipment which constitutes an essential component under a contract for the supply of goods and which is necessary for the putting into operation of the equipment supplied and which is carried out by the self-employed worker who supplies the equipment, when the duration of the work referred to does not exceed eight days. This derogation does not, however, apply to activities in the construction sector …; 2. a self-employed worker who enters Belgium in order to carry out urgent maintenance work or urgent repair work on machinery or equipment supplied by him to the undertaking established in Belgium at which the repair or maintenance is carried out, provided that his stay made necessary by those activities does not exceed five days per calendar month; 3. self-employed workers who do not have their main residence in Belgium and give or attend conferences there; 4. self-employed workers who do not have their main residence in Belgium and who attend private meetings, provided that their attendance at those meetings does not exceed a maximum of 60 days per calendar year with a maximum of 20 consecutive calendar days per meeting; 5. amateur athletes and, if appropriate, their self-employed accompanying persons, who do not have their main residence in Belgium and carry out activities there as part of their respective professions, provided that the duration of the stay made necessary by those activities does not exceed three months per calendar year; 6. self-employed entertainers and, if appropriate, their accompanying persons who are self-employed, who do not have their main residence in Belgium and who come to carry out activities as part of their respective professions, provided the duration of their stay made necessary by those activities does not exceed 21 days per quarter; 7. self-employed workers in the sector of international transport of persons or goods, unless those self-employed workers carry out cabotage activities on Belgian territory; 8. commercial attachés who travel to Belgium provided that the duration of the stay made necessary by their activities does not exceed five days per calendar month; 9. corporate administrators and agents who travel to Belgium to attend company board meetings and general assemblies, provided that the duration of the stay made necessary by those activities does not exceed five days per calendar month.’
4

Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive provides: ‘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 is to be treated as nil.’
7

Under Article 6 of Directive 2001/14: ‘1. Member States shall lay down conditions, including where appropriate advance payments, to ensure that, under normal business conditions and over a reasonable time period, the accounts of an infrastructure manager shall at least balance income from infrastructure charges, surpluses from other commercial activities and State funding on the one hand, and infrastructure expenditure on the other. Without prejudice to the possible long-term aim of user cover of infrastructure costs for all modes of transport on the basis of fair, non-discriminatory competition between the various modes, where rail transport is able to compete with other modes of transport, within the charging framework of Articles 7 and 8, a Member State may require the infrastructure manager to balance his accounts without State funding. 2. Infrastructure managers shall, with due regard to safety and to maintaining and improving the quality of the infrastructure service, be provided with incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges. 3. Member States shall ensure that the provision set out in paragraph 2 is implemented, either through a contractual agreement between the competent authority and infrastructure manager covering a period of not less than three years which provides for State funding or through the establishment of appropriate regulatory measures with adequate powers. 4. Where a contractual agreement exists, the terms of the contract and the structure of the payments agreed to provide funding to the infrastructure manager shall be agreed in advance to cover the whole of the contract period. 5. A method for apportioning costs shall be established. Member States may require prior approval. This method should be updated from time to time to the best international practice.’
Keywords



Keywords

Tax provisions

—

Harmonisation of laws

—

Turnover taxes

—

Common system of value added tax

—

Member States entitled to apply a reduced rate as a transitional measure

—

Reintroduction of a reduced rate of 2.10% for revenue from admission to first performances of concerts given in establishments in which refreshments are served on request during the performance

—

Not permissible (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 99 and 110) (see paras 30, 32, 37, operative part

)
Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12 and repealing Directive 93/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that a market in financial instruments that does not satisfy the requirements in Title III of that directive does not fall within the concept of ‘regulated market’, as defined in that provision, notwithstanding the fact that its operator merged with the operator of such a regulated market. The possibility of a market’s being classified as a regulated market by reason of such a merger is not provided for in Title III or in the other titles of that directive.

Article 47 of Directive 2004/39 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12 and repealing Directive 93/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that the inclusion of a market in the list of regulated markets referred to in that article is not a precondition for the classification of that market as a regulated market within the meaning of that directive.

It follows that the fact of being included in that list is not a constituent element of the classification of a market in financial instruments as a regulated market within the meaning of Directive 2004/39. Therefore, the mere fact of its not being included in that list is not enough to exclude that market’s being a regulated market.

(see paras 54, 55, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))

Summary

The requirements flowing from the protection of fundamental rights are binding on Member States whenever they implement European Union law. Moreover, Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing European Union law and, under Article 6(1) TEU, which confers on the Charter the same legal value as the Treaties, the Charter does not create any new competence for the European Union.

Consequently, in a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, where national legislation falls within the scope of European Union law, the Court, to which the reference for a preliminary ruling is made, must provide all the criteria of interpretation needed in order for the national court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights which derive in particular from the Charter. In the present case, where it is not apparent from the order for reference that the national legislation constitutes a measure implementing European Union law or that it is connected in any other way with European Union law, the jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the reference for a preliminary ruling in so far as it relates to the fundamental right to an effective remedy is not established.

(see paras 56-59)
The activity of a public authority consisting in the storing, in a database, of data which undertakings are obliged to report on the basis of statutory obligations, in permitting interested persons to search for that data and/or in providing them with print-outs thereof does not constitute an economic activity, and that public authority is not, therefore, to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. The fact that those searches and/or that provision of print-outs are carried out in consideration for remuneration provided for by law and not determined, directly or indirectly, by the entity concerned, is not such as to alter the legal classification of that activity. In addition, when such a public authority prohibits any other use of the data thus collected and made available to the public, by relying upon the sui generis protection granted to it as maker of the database pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases, or upon any other intellectual property right, it also does not exercise an economic activity and is not therefore to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU.

(see para. 51, operative part)
Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.

The downloading of a copy of a computer program and the conclusion of a user licence agreement for that copy form an indivisible whole. Downloading a copy of a computer program is pointless if the copy cannot be used by its possessor. Those two operations must therefore be examined as a whole for the purposes of their legal classification.

Those operations involve the transfer of the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program in question, as the making available by the copyright holder of a copy of his computer program and the conclusion of a user licence agreement for that copy are intended to make the copy usable by the customer, permanently, in return for payment of a fee designed to enable the copyright holder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor. It makes no difference whether the copy of the computer program was made available to the customer by the rightholder concerned by means of a download from the rightholder’s website or by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD.

(see paras 44-47, 72, operative part 1)
Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 98/80, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the sale of bingo cards, the taxable amount for VAT does not include the portion of the card price fixed in advance by legislation and intended to be used to pay winnings to players.

Since the portion of the card price which is paid as winnings to players is fixed in advance and is mandatory, it cannot be regarded as forming part of the consideration received by the organiser of the game for the supply of the service provided to players, which consideration forms the basis of assessment.

(see paras 25, 28, 33, operative part 1)