larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH.
Date: 2009-04-30
16. In that connection, it should be recalled that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered to be measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions for the purposes of Article 28 EC (see, in particular, Case 8/74 Dassonville  [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5).
17. However, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to constitute such a hindrance, on condition that those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and that they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those conditions are fulfilled, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products (see Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, paragraphs 16 and 17, and Case C-110/05 Commission  v Italy  [2009], ECR I-0000, paragraph 36).
20. In so far as the national provisions on book pricing, such as those in Paragraph 3 of the BPrBG, do not concern the characteristics of those goods, but solely the arrangements under which they may be sold, it must be regarded as concerning selling arrangements within the meaning of Keck and Mithouard . As is clear from that judgment, however, such a selling arrangement can fall outside the prohibition laid down in Article 28 EC only if it satisfies the conditions stated in paragraph 17 above.
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom.
Date: 2009-04-30
9. In that regard, it is sufficient to recall, first, that a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify the failure to observe obligations and deadlines laid down in a directive (see, inter alia, C-70/06 Commission v Portugal  [2008] ECR I-1, paragraph 22, and judgment of 11 December 2008 in Case C‑330/08 Commission  v France , paragraph 16).
10. Secondly, according to settled case-law of the Court, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation obtaining in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, judgment of 27 September 2007 in Case C-9/07 Commission  v France , paragraph 8, and Case C‑152/05 Commission  v Germany  [2008] ECR I‑39, paragraph 15).
Associação Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop) and Others v Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA (Carris) and Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA (STCP).
Date: 2009-05-07
17. It must first of all be noted that nothing in the documents before the Court suggests that the Portuguese Republic has made use of the option, provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1191/69, to exclude from the scope of that regulation any undertakings whose activities are confined exclusively to the operation of urban, suburban or regional services. Consequently, the provisions of that regulation are fully applicable to the case in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling must be examined in the light of those provisions.
23. It must first be noted that Article 87 EC is one of the general provisions of the Treaty on State aid, whereas Article 73 EC creates an exception in the field of transport to the general rules applicable to State aid, by providing that aids which meet the needs of coordination of transport or represent reimbursement for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service are compatible with the Treaty. Regulation No 1191/69 establishes a system which the Member States must comply with when they consider imposing public service obligations on undertakings in the land transport sector (see Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg , paragraph 53).
28. In such a case, since the compensation payments paid to those undertakings were not granted in accordance with Regulation No 1191/69, they are consequently not compatible with Community law and it is therefore unnecessary to examine them in the light of the Treaty provisions relating to State aid, in particular Article 87(1) EC (see, to that effect, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg , paragraph 65).
JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA).
Date: 2009-06-04
36. The general conditions for the grant of support for farming practices designed, in particular, to maintain the countryside are set out in Articles 22 to 24 of Regulation No 1257/1999, from which it is clear that agri-environmental measures are characterised by the five-year commitment given by the farmers concerned to use environmentally-favourable farming practices. In exchange for agri-environmental commitments, support is allocated annually by the States according to the loss of revenue incurred or the resulting additional costs.
46. In addition, subject to the compatibility and consistency with the objectives and provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999, and compliance with the general principles of Community law, with which the Member States must comply when they implement Community rules (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04 Elmeka  [2006] ECR I-8167, paragraph 31, and the case-law cited), such as the principles of equal treatment, the protection of legitimate expectations, and proportionality, the national authorities had the option of using a measure other than the one provided for in the Development Plan.
51. As regards the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, with which the Member States must comply when they implement Community rules (see the case-law cited in paragraph 46 of this judgment), it must be recalled that, in the field of the common agricultural policy, economic operators are not justified in having a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the competent authorities in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained (see, to that effect, with respect to the common organisation of the markets, Case C-310/04 Spain  v Council  [2006] ECR I-7285, paragraph 81).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2009-06-04
34. At the outset, it should be noted that, as derogations from the rules relating to procedures for the award of public procurement contracts, the provisions of Article 20(2)(c) and (d) of Directive 93/38 must be interpreted strictly and that the burden of proof lies on the party seeking to rely on them ( Commission  v Greece , paragraph 33).
38. Secondly, by stating in recital 46 in the preamble to Directive 93/38 that, as a counterpart for such flexibility and in the interests of mutual confidence, it is necessary to ensure the transparency of public procurement procedures and by providing – as is made quite clear in Article 20(1) of that directive – that use of one of the three award procedures set out in Article 1(7) of the directive must be preceded by a call for competition, the Community legislature has left no room for doubt as to its intention that the option of awarding a public contract without a prior call for competition, in the circumstances specified in Article 20(2) of Directive 93/38, is to be regarded as a derogation from the principle that the award of such a contract must be preceded by a call for competition.
52. In that connection, it should be noted that, by analogy with the Court’s dicta regarding the renegotiation of contracts already awarded (see Case C‑454/06 pressetext Nachrichtenagentur  [2008] ECR I‑4401, paragraph 35), the amendment of an initial contract condition can be regarded as substantial for the purposes of Article 20(2)(a) of Directive 93/38, inter alia, where the amended condition, had it been part of the initial award procedure, would have allowed tenders submitted in the procedure with a prior call for competition to be considered suitable or would have allowed tenderers other than those who participated in the initial procedure to submit a tender.
Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Trieste v Pometon SpA.
Date: 2009-06-04
13. According to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of Community law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑222/05 to C-225/05 van der Weerd and Others  [2007] ECR I-4233, paragraph 22, and the case-law cited).
24. It is clear from all the rules which make up its legal structure that the very aim of inward processing is to exempt from customs duties only those goods which are brought into the Community customs territory purely on a temporary basis in order that they may be worked, repaired or processed, and then re-exported, thus preventing economic activity in Community countries from being penalised.
27. As regards the consequences arising from the finding of such irregularity, Article 4(3) of Regulation No 2988/95, which is general in scope, states that ‘[a]cts which are established to have as their purpose the obtaining of an advantage contrary to the objectives of the Community law applicable in the case by artificially creating the conditions required for obtaining that advantage shall result, as the case shall be, either in failure to obtain the advantage or in its withdrawal’.
28. The Court has already held that the obligation to give back an advantage improperly received by means of an irregular practice does not breach the principle of legality. The obligation to repay is not a penalty, but simply the consequence of a finding that the conditions required to obtain the advantage derived from the Community rules were created artificially, thereby rendering the advantage received a payment that was not due and thus justifying the obligation to repay it (see, to that effect, Case C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke  [2000] ECR I‑11569, paragraph 56).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2009-06-11
33. It follows that, if restrictions on the free movement of capital between nationals of States party to the EEA Agreement must be assessed in the light of Article 40 of and Annex XII to that Agreement, those stipulations have the same legal scope as those of the substantially identical provisions of Article 56 EC (see, to that effect, Ospelt en Schlössle Weissenberg , paragraph 32).
34. Moreover, in the absence of any unifying or harmonising Community measures, Member States retain the power to define, by treaty or unilaterally, the criteria for allocating their powers of taxation, particularly with a view to eliminating double taxation (see, to that effect, Amurta , paragraphs 16 and 17).
35. That power does not permit them to apply measures contrary to the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the Treaty or similar provisions of the EEA Agreement (see, to that effect, Amurta , paragraph 24).
42. According to consistent case-law, for a national tax provision to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital, the resulting difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest ( Amurta , paragraph 32 and case-law cited).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2009-06-11
30. That exception relates to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes outside the statutory social security schemes. Thus, having regard to the general objective of safeguarding the rights of employees in the event of transfers of undertakings pursued by the Directive, the exception to that rule must be interpreted strictly (see, by analogy, Case C‑164/00 Beckmann  [2002] ECR I‑4893, paragraph 29).
46. Contrary to the submissions of the Italian Republic, alteration of the terms and conditions of employment under Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/23 cannot constitute a specific derogation from the guarantee laid down in Article 3(3) of that directive which ensures maintenance, for at least a year after the transfer, of terms and conditions of employment agreed in any collective agreement. Since the rules of Directive 2001/23 must be considered to be mandatory, so that it is not possible to derogate from them in a manner unfavourable to employees, the rights and obligations arising from a collective agreement existing on the date of a transfer must, by reason of such transfer, be transferred to the transferee (see Case C‑499/04 Werhof  [2006] ECR I‑2397, paragraphs 26 and 27). It follows that the alteration of the terms and conditions of employment authorised by Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/23 assumes that the transfer of the employees’ rights to the transferor has already taken place.
Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests.
Date: 2009-06-11
24. First of all, it is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of parts for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and in the section or chapter notes (see, inter alia, Case C‑142/06 Olicom  [2007] ECR I‑6675, paragraph 16, and the case-law cited).
25. In addition, the intended use of an article may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to the article, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the article’s objective characteristics and properties (see Case C‑403/07 Metherma  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 47).
26. Both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the Explanatory Notes to the HS are important means of ensuring the uniform application of the tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (Joined Cases C‑362/07 and C‑363/07 Kip Europe and Others  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 27).
X (C-155/08) and E. H. A. Passenheim-van Schoot (C-157/08) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2009-06-11
32. It should be recalled in this regard that Article 49 EC precludes the application of any national rules which have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within a Member State (see, in particular, Case C‑118/96 Safir  [1998] ECR I‑1897, paragraph 23; Case C‑334/02 Commission  v France  [2004] ECR I‑2229, paragraph 23; and Case C‑318/05 Commission  v Germany  [2007] ECR I‑6957, paragraph 81).
33. In addition, measures taken by a Member State which are liable to dissuade its residents from obtaining loans or making investments in other Member States constitute restrictions on movements of capital within the meaning of Article 56(1) EC (see, in particular, Case C‑478/98 Commission  v Belgium  [2000] ECR I‑7587, paragraph 18).
45. As to those submissions, the Court has already held that the need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision (see, inter alia, Case C‑101/05 A  [2007] ECR I‑11531, paragraph 55) and the prevention of tax evasion (see, inter alia, Case C‑451/05 ELISA  [2007] ECR I‑8251, paragraph 81) constitute overriding requirements of general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the exercise of freedom of movement guaranteed by the EC Treaty.
47. However, in order to be justified, a restrictive measure must comply with the principle of proportionality, in that it must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain it (Case C‑334/02 Commission  v France , paragraph 28).
62. To assess whether legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and to prevent tax evasion, two situations must be distinguished.
63. The first situation is where items which are taxable in one Member State and located in another Member State have been concealed from the tax authorities of the first Member State and the latter do not have any evidence of the existence of those items which would enable an investigation to be initiated. In that situation, the first Member State is unable to request the competent authorities of the other Member State to communicate to it the information necessary to establish correctly the amount of tax due.
H. J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.
Date: 2009-06-11
41. First, the principle of proportionality is a general principle of Community law that must be observed by the Community legislature and by the national legislatures and courts, in particular with regard to the common agricultural policy. That principle requires that measures adopted by Community institutions should not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued (see Case C‑534/06 Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine  [2008] ECR I‑4129, paragraph 25).
44. Second, the principle of legal certainty, a general principle of Community law, requires that Community rules binding on individuals must be clear and precise so that they may know without ambiguity what are their rights and obligations and may take steps accordingly (see, in particular, Case 169/80 Gondrand and Garancini  [1981] ECR 1931, paragraph 17).
45. In the main proceedings, Mr Nijemeisland accepted, without challenge and without admission of guilt, the penalty concerning the loss of the premium for one calendar year, imposed in accordance with the rules in force at the time. At that time, it was impossible for him to foresee that his decision might have consequences on future direct payments under rules adopted in 2003. Before the entry into force of Regulation No 1782/2003, the applicant could not foresee that his exclusion from receiving the premium would play a role in regard to the amount of the single payment and could therefore cause financial consequences unfavourable to him for several years.
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom.
Date: 2009-06-18
6. In that connection, it should be borne in mind that the Court has consistently held that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C‑168/03 Commission  v Spain  [2004] ECR I‑8227, paragraph 24; judgment of 27 September 2007 in Case C‑354/06 Commission  v Luxembourg , paragraph 7; and judgment of 4 December 2008 in Case C‑41/08 Commission  v Czech Republic , paragraph 9).
Har Vaessen Douane Service BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2009-07-02
21. First of all, provisions granting relief from customs duties are to be interpreted according to their terms (see, by analogy, Joined Cases C-47/95 to C-50/95, C‑60/95, C-81/95, C-92/95 and C-148/95 Olasagasti and Others [1996] ECR I‑6579, paragraph 20).
33. That interpretation is, moreover, in accordance with the objective of Article 27 as it is set out in the first recital in the preamble to Regulation No 3357/91, namely that the relief provided for in that provision aims at administrative simplification of customs procedures.
34. It should be pointed out that when adopting provisions granting relief from customs duties, the Council of the European Union must take account, amongst other things, of the difficulties confronting national customs administrations (see, by analogy, Case C-247/97 Schoonbroodt  [1998] ECR I-8095, paragraph 23).
Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL and Acierta Product & Position SA.
Date: 2009-07-02
63. Thus, it follows from the need for uniform application of Community law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see, inter alia, Case 327/82 Ekro [1984] ECR 107, paragraph 11; Case C‑287/98 Linster  [2000] ECR I-6917, paragraph 43; and Case C‑316/05 Nokia  [2006] ECR I-12083, paragraph 21).
65. If those terms were to be interpreted differently in the various Member States, the same circumstances could mean that in some Member States the right to the Community design belongs to the designer, and in others to his successor in title. In that case, the protection afforded to the Community designs would not be uniform throughout the entire area of the Community (see, by analogy, Nokia , paragraph 27).
EGN BV - Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate - Ufficio di Roma 2.
Date: 2009-07-02
27. It should be noted in that regard that Article 9 of the Sixth Directive contains rules for determining the place where services are deemed to be supplied for VAT purposes. Whereas Article 9(1) lays down a general rule in that regard, Article 9(2) sets out a number of specific instances of places where certain services are deemed to be supplied. The object of those provisions is to avoid, first, conflicts of jurisdiction which may result in double taxation, and, secondly, non-taxation (see, in particular, Case C‑327/94 Dudda  [1996] ECR I‑4595, paragraph 20; Case C‑291/07 Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 24; and Case C‑1/08 Athesia Druck  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 20).
28. It should also be noted that, in respect of the relationship between Article 9(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive, Article 9(1) in no way takes precedence over Article 9(2). In every situation, the question which arises is whether that situation is covered by one of the instances mentioned in Article 9(2). If not, it falls within the scope of Article 9(1) (see in particular, Case C‑167/95 Linthorst, Pouwels en Scheres  [1997] ECR I‑1195, paragraph 11; Case C‑452/03 RAL (Channel Islands) and Others  [2005] ECR I‑3947, paragraph 24; and Case C‑114/05 Gillan Beach  [2006] ECR I‑2427, paragraph 15).
29. As is apparent from the seventh recital in the preamble to the Sixth Directive, the overall purpose of Article 9(2) of that directive is to establish a special system for services provided between taxable persons where the cost of the services is included in the price of the goods ( Dudda , paragraphs 22 and 23, and Gillan Beach , paragraphs 16 and 17).