ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Credit institutions – National legislation prohibiting the payment of remuneration on sight accounts – Not permitted – Justification – None

(Art. 43 EC)

Summary

Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which prohibits a credit institution which is a subsidiary of a company from another Member State from remunerating sight accounts in euros opened by residents of the former Member State.

Such a prohibition, which constitutes for companies from other Member States a serious obstacle to the pursuit of their activities via a subsidiary, affecting their access to the market, is to be regarded as a restriction within the meaning of Article 43 EC. That restriction cannot be justified by overriding requirements of the public interest, relating to the protection of consumers or the encouragement of medium and long-term saving, since it goes beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.

(see paras 12, 17, 21, 23-24, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9 – Definition of database – Football fixtures list – Included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 1(2))

2. Approximation of laws – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9 – Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database – Resources used to draw up a football fixtures list – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 7(1))

Summary

1. The term ‘database’ as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases refers to any collection of works, data or other materials, separable from one another without the value of their contents being affected, including a method or system of some sort for the retrieval of each of its constituent materials.

A football fixtures list constitutes a database within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the directive. First, the data contained in it concerning the date, the time and the identity of the teams in a particular football match have, when taken together, an independent informative value in that they provide interested third parties with relevant information about the match concerned. Second, the arrangement of those data in the form of a fixture list meets the conditions as to systematic or methodical arrangement and individual accessibility of the constituent materials of that collection required by Article 1(2) of the directive.

(see paras 32-36, 53, operative part)

2. The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to investment in the creation of that database. It therefore refers to the resources used to seek out existing materials and collect them in that database but does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database.

In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league do not constitute such investment. Moreover, finding the data which make up a football fixture list does not require any particular effort on the part of the professional leagues, which participate directly in the creation of the data. The resources used for the verification or presentation of the data making up the list cannot therefore be considered to represent a substantial investment independent of the investment in the creation of those data.

(see paras 39-40, 47, 49-51, 53, operative part)
Case C-114/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 98/8/EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 14 January 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 April 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)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Chargeable event and chargeability of tax

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 10(2), second para.)

Summary

The second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, as a derogation from the rule laid down in the first subparagraph of that provision, provides that, where payments are made on account before the goods are delivered or the services are performed, the tax becomes chargeable on receipt of payment and on the amount received. Prepayments of lump sums paid for goods referred to in general terms in a list which may be altered at any time by agreement between the buyer and the seller and from which the buyer may possibly select articles, on the basis of an agreement which he may unilaterally resile from at any time, thereupon recovering the unused balance of the prepayments, do not fall within the scope of that provision.

In order for the tax to become chargeable where an amount is paid on account without the supply or service having been provided, all the relevant information concerning the chargeable event, namely the future delivery or future performance, must already be known and therefore, in particular, when the payment on account is made the goods or services must be precisely identified.

(see paras 45, 48, 51, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

16 October 2003

((Common agricultural policy – Fees for health inspections and controls of fresh meat – Directive 85/73/EEC))

and

THE COURT (Second Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

after hearing the oral observations of Emil Färber GmbH & Co., represented by M. Stephani and L. Liebenau, Rechtsanwalt, and the Commission, represented by G. Braun, at the hearing on 8 May 2003,
Case C-323/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Hydrowatt SARL





«(Arbitration clause – Non-performance of contract – Termination – Recovery of sums advanced – Interest)»

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

Summary of the Judgment
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

13 November 2003

((Freedom to provide services – Lottery tickets – Amount won in a game of chance held in another Member State – Income tax – Tax on games of chance – Special regime in the Åland Islands))

In Case C-42/02,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Finnish Government, represented by E. Bygglin, the Belgian Government, represented by P. De Wael, acting as Agent, the Commission, represented by K. Simonsson, and the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by E. Wright, at the hearing on 23 January 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 April 2003,
Case C-388/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 1999/42/EC)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

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)
Case C-209/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Republic of Austria





«(Directive 92/43/EEC – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora – Habitat of the corncrake – Wörschacher Moos special protection area)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 6 November 2003

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 29 January 2004

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)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination by the reasoned opinion – Time-limit imposed on the Member State – Later cessation of the failure to fulfil obligations – Interest in continuing the action – National decision which is the source of the failure to fulfil obligations still in force on expiry of the time-limit imposed on the Member State

(Art. 226 EC)

3.. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Special protection areas – Obligations of Member States – Assessment of the impact of a project on a site – Negative conclusions – Obligation to take into account the likelihood of adverse effects on the integrity of the area

(Council Directives 79/409, Art. 4, and 92/43, Arts 6(3) and (4) and 7)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-30/02

Recheio – Cash & Carry SA

v

Fazenda Pública/Registo Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa)

(Recovery of sums paid though not due – Period of 90 days for the bringing of an action – Principle of effectiveness)

Summary of the Judgment

Community law – Direct effect – National charges incompatible with Community law – Reimbursement – Procedures – Application of national law – Conditions – Observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Limitation period of 90 days – Permissible

Given the lack of Community rules on the refund of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, second, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

In respect of the principle of effectiveness, it is compatible with Community law to lay down reasonable limitation periods in the interests of legal certainty, which protects both the taxpayer and the administration concerned. In that regard, a time-limit of 90 days for bringing national proceedings, which is reckoned from the end of the period allowed for voluntary payment of the charges, appears reasonable inasmuch as it represents a sufficient length of time to enable the taxpayer to take the decision to bring an action for annulment in full awareness of all the facts and for that purpose to gather all the matters of fact or law required.

Accordingly, with regard to a claim for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community law, the principle of effectiveness of Community law does not militate against the fixing of a limitation period of 90 days reckoned from the end of the period prescribed for voluntary payment of those charges.

(see paras 17-18, 21-22, 26, operative part)
Case C-152/02

Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH

v

Finanzamt Osterholz-Scharmbeck

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 17(1) and 18(1) and (2) – Right to deduct input VAT – Conditions of exercise)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Exercise of the right to deduct – Relevant tax period – Period in which the conditions connected with both delivery of the goods or provision of the services and possession of the invoice are satisfied

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17(2)(a) and 18(2), first subpara.)

For the deduction referred to in Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, the first subparagraph of Article 18(2) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct must be exercised in respect of the tax period in which the two conditions required by that provision are satisfied, namely that the goods have been delivered or the services performed and that the taxable person holds the invoice or the document which, under the criteria determined by the Member State in question, may be considered to serve as an invoice.

(see para. 38, operative part)
Case C-415/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Belgium

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Indirect taxes – Directive 69/335/EEC – Raising of capital – Tax on stock exchange transactions – Tax on the delivery of bearer securities)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – National legislation imposing tax on applications for new securities and the physical delivery of new bearer securities – Not permissible

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 11)

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303 which provides, among other things, that Member States must not subject to any form of taxation the creation, issue, admission to quotation on a stock exchange, making available on the market or dealing in stocks, shares or other securities of the same type

- which imposes a tax on stock exchange transactions on applications made in that Member State for new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue, and

- which imposes a tax on the delivery of bearer securities on the physical delivery of bearer securities relating to its national or foreign government stocks, in the case of new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue,

While it is true that that provision does not expressly mention the first acquisition or the initial delivery of the securities referred to, the fact remains that to permit the levying of tax or duty on the initial acquisition of a newly issued security or on the physical delivery of a bearer security occurring as part of its issue, amounts in reality to taxing the very issue of that security as those transactions form an integral part of an overall transaction with regard to the raising of capital.

(see paras 32, 46-47, 53, operative part)
Case C-396/02

DFDS BV

v

Inspecteur der Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam)

(Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Subheading 8704 10 – ‘Minitrac’ for the transport and dumping of sand, earth and stones with a sophisticated tipping system)

Summary of the Judgment

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Flatbed vehicle with a sophisticated tipping system – Classification under subheading 8704 10 of the Combined Nomenclature

The fact that a flatbed vehicle is equipped with an intricate, versatile and precise tipping function does not exclude its classification as a dumper within the meaning of subheading 8704 10 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Regulations Nos 3115/94 and 3009/95.

It is clear from the descriptions of such vehicles in the explanatory notes on the Combined Nomenclature and the Harmonised System that an essential characteristic of dumpers is to have a tipping hopper or an opening bottom for the transport of rubble and various materials. There is, by contrast, no indication in those notes that the form or functioning of the tipping hoppers can constitute, by themselves, decisive criteria for the classification of a vehicle as a dumper.

(see paras 32, 37, operative part)
Case C-216/02

Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen

v

Burgenländische Landesregierung

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

(Free movement of goods – Intra-Community trade in equidae – Procedure for approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae – Article 2(2) of Decision 92/353/EEC)

Summary of the judgment

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)

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)
Case C-428/02

Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn

v

Skatteministeriet

and

Skatteministeriet

v

Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13B(b) – Exemptions – Leasing of immovable property – Letting of premises and sites for parking vehicles – Mooring berths for boats – Land storage sites for boats)

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 14 October 2004

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 3 March 2005

Summary of the Judgment

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions laid down by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the letting of immovable property – Meaning – Letting of water‑ and land‑based mooring berths for boats

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

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions laid down by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the letting of immovable property – Exception concerning sites for parking vehicles – Meaning of vehicles – All means of transport, including boats

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b), point 2)

1. Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of letting of immovable property includes the letting of both water-based mooring berths for boats and land sites for storage of boats on port land.

As regards, more particularly, the former, a mooring berth in a port basin fulfils the definition of immovable property within the meaning of the provision concerned, since the letting does not concern a particular quantity of water, but a specific part of the port basin which is clearly delimited and cannot be moved.

(see paras 34-36, operative part 1)





2. Article 13B(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 92/111, which excludes the letting of premises and sites for parking vehicles from the exemption from value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term of ‘vehicles’ used in that provision includes all means of transport, including boats.

(see paras 44, 46-47, operative part 2)
Case C-174/02

Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant

v

Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

(State aid – Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) – Planned aid – Prohibition on the implementation of planned measures before the Commission’s final decision – Scope of the prohibition if the aid consists of an exemption from a tax – Persons who may rely on an infringement)

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 4 March 2004

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 13 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

1. State aid – Planned aid – Prohibition on implementation before the Commission’s final decision – Direct effect – Persons who may rely on an infringement – Individual subject to a tax which is an integral part of an aid measure

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3), EC))

2. State aid – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope – Taxes coupled with exemptions regarded as aid – Included – Condition – Hypothecation

(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93 (now Art. 88 EC))

1. An individual may have an interest in relying before the national court on the direct effect of the prohibition on implementation referred to in the last sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now, Article 88(3) EC), not only in order to erase the negative effects of the distortion of competition created by the grant of unlawful aid, but also in order to obtain a refund of a tax levied in breach of that provision. In the latter case, the question whether an individual has been affected by the distortion of competition arising from the aid measure is irrelevant to the assessment of his interest in bringing proceedings. The only fact to be taken into consideration is that the individual is subject to a tax which is an integral part of a measure implemented in breach of the prohibition referred to in the last sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty.

(see para. 19)

2. Taxes do not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Treaty concerning State aid unless they constitute the method of financing an aid measure, so that they form an integral part of that measure.

For a tax, or part of a tax, to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules, in the sense that the revenue from the tax is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid. In the event of such hypothecation, the revenue from the tax has a direct impact on the amount of the aid and, consequently, on the assessment of its compatibility with the common market.

The fact that the aid is granted in the form of a tax exemption or that the loss of revenue due to that exemption is, for the purposes of the budget estimates of the Member State, offset by an increase in the tax is not in itself sufficient to amount to such hypothecation.

(see paras 25-26, 29, operative part)