larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Omalet NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid.
Date: 2010-12-22
9. The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the freedom to provide services in a situation in which, as the referring court itself points out, all of the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings are confined within a single Member State.
10. In those circumstances, the Court must assess whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of those provisions (see, to that effect, Case C-380/05 Centro Europa 7  [2008] ECR I-349, paragraph 64, and Case C-384/08 Attanasio Group  [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 22).
11. The Court has declined jurisdiction where it was obvious that the provision of European Union law referred to the Court for interpretation was incapable of applying (Case C‑567/07 Woningstichting Sint Servatius [2009] ECR I-9021, paragraph 43).
12. It is settled case-law that the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom to provide services do not apply to situations where all the relevant facts are confined within a single Member State (see, inter alia, Case C-108/98 RI.SAN [1999] ECR I-5219, paragraph 23, and Case C-97/98 Jägerskiöld  [1999] ECR I-7319, paragraph 42).
13. In the present case, it is clear from the case-file submitted to the Court that all the facts relating to the dispute in the main proceedings are indeed confined within a single Member State, in that both the principal contractor and the subcontractor are established in Belgium and all of the facts took place within that Member State.
14. It is therefore clear that the dispute in the main proceedings does not present any link to the situations envisaged by Article 49 EC, and so that provision does not apply.
15. It is true that, according to the Court’s case-law, even in such a purely internal situation, the Court’s answer may nevertheless be useful to the referring court, in particular if its national law required it to grant the same rights to a national of a given Member State as those which a national of another Member State in the same situation would derive from European Union law (see, inter alia, Case C‑448/98 Guimont  [2000] ECR I-10663, paragraph 23; Case C-451/03 Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti  [2006] ECR I-2941, paragraph 29; Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others  [2006] ECR I-11421, paragraph 30; and Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07 Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez  [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 36).
18. Accordingly, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, where all of the facts are confined within the Member State in question, the Court does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te Brussel.
European Commission v Republic of Malta.
Date: 2010-12-22
24. Therefore, the claims for dismissal of the substance of the action and the underlying pleas advanced for the first time in the rejoinder must be considered as late and, therefore, inadmissible (see Case C‑471/98 Commission v Belgium  [2002] ECR I-9681, paragraphs 41 to 43, and Case C‑526/08 Commission v Luxembourg [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 48 to 50).
26. In this regard, it is undisputed that, at the date relevant for ascertaining whether there was a failure to fulfil obligations, which is determined by the expiry of the deadline laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C‑173/01 Commission v Greece  [2002] ECR I-6129, paragraph 7, and Case C‑487/08 Commission v Spain  [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34), the Republic of Malta, firstly, had not established monitoring programmes for the status of inland surface water and made them operational in accordance with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60 and, secondly, had failed to submit summary reports on those monitoring programmes in accordance with Article 15(2) of that directive.
RTL Belgium SA.
Date: 2010-12-22
36. According to settled case-law, in order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU, which is a question governed by EU law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes , whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, inter alia, Case C‑54/96 Dorsch Consult  [1997] ECR I‑4961, paragraph 23; Case C‑53/03 Syfait and Others [2005] ECR I‑4609, paragraph 29; Case C‑246/05 Häupl  [2007] ECR I‑4673, paragraph 16; and order in Case C‑109/07 Pilato  [2008] ECR I‑3503, paragraph 22).
38. According to the case-law of the Court, the concept of independence, which is inherent in the task of adjudication, implies above all that the body in question acts as a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the contested decision (Case C‑24/92 Corbiau  [1993] ECR I-1277, paragraph 15, and Case C‑506/04 Wilson  [2006] ECR I‑8613, paragraph 49).
39. There are two aspects to that concept. The first aspect, which is external, entails that the body is protected against external intervention or pressure liable to jeopardise the independent judgment of its members as regards proceedings before them ( Wilson , paragraphs 50 and 51).
40. The second aspect, which is internal, is linked to impartiality and seeks to ensure a level playing field for the parties to the proceedings and their respective interests in relation to the subject-matter of those proceedings ( Wilson , paragraph 52).
45. It should be noted that, through the Bureau, the Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority, which is a decision-making body, is linked, in terms of functions, with the Broadcasting Authority as a whole and with the Investigatory Office, upon whose proposals it decides. Consequently, when it adopts a decision, the Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority is not distinct from the administrative monitoring body, which can act as a party to proceedings relating to broadcasting matters (see, by analogy, Syfait and Others , paragraph 33).
47. Accordingly, when it takes a decision, the Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority is not acting as a third party in relation to the interests at stake and, in consequence, does not possess the necessary impartiality with respect to alleged offenders – in the present case, RTL Belgium SA – to constitute a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU.
48. There is no need, therefore, to determine whether the other criteria for assessing whether a referring body is a ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU are satisfied by the Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority.
Ville de Lyon v Caisse des dépôts et consignations.
Date: 2010-12-22
35. It should be noted as a preliminary point that, in adhering to the Aarhus Convention, the European Union undertook to ensure, within the scope of EU law, a general principle of access to environmental information held by the public authorities.
36. In adopting Directive 2003/4, the European Union intended to implement the Aarhus Convention by providing for a general scheme to ensure that any natural or legal person in a Member State of the European Union has a right of access to environmental information held by or on behalf of the public authorities, without that person having to show an interest.
40. Since Article 19 of Directive 2003/87 does not refer to Directive 2003/4 in the same way as in Article 17, it must be held that the EU legislature did not intend to make requests concerning trading data such as that at issue in the main proceedings subject to the general provisions of Directive 2003/4 but that, on the contrary, it sought to introduce, in respect of that data, a specific, exhaustive scheme for public reporting and confidentiality of that data.
41. The answer to the second question is therefore that a request for the reporting of trading data such as that requested in the main proceedings, relating to the names of holders of the transferring accounts and acquiring accounts of the emission allowances, allowances or Kyoto units involved in those transactions and the date and time of those transactions, comes exclusively under the specific rules governing public reporting and confidentiality contained in Directive 2003/87 and in Regulation No 2216/2004.
The third and fourth questions
50. It follows that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings and, in any event, in the absence of the prior consent of the relevant account holders, as required by Article 10(2) of Regulation No 2216/2004, to use of the information concerning them for purposes other than the operation and maintenance of the registries, information such as the trading data requested in the main proceedings must remain confidential, with the result that the Ville de Lyon may only claim access to information relating to transactions involving emission allowances on the same terms as for the general public, that is, free consultation, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex XV to Regulation No 2216/2004, of the public area of the Community independent transaction log’s website and the public area of the websites of the national registries, which are distinct from the databases of that log and those registries.
Lecson Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund.
Date: 2010-12-22
15. As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, when the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria which will enable the latter to classify the products at issue correctly in the CN, rather than to effect that classification itself, in particular since the Court does not necessarily have available to it all the information which is essential in that regard. In any event, the national court is in a better position to do so (Joined Cases C‑260/00 to C‑263/00 Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth  [2002] ECR I‑10045, paragraph 26, and Case C‑500/04 Proxxon  [2006] ECR I‑1545, paragraph 23). However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see, in particular, Case C‑49/07 MOTOE  [2008] ECR I‑4863, paragraph 30).
16. It should also be recalled that it is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and of the section or chapter notes (see, in particular, Case C‑396/02 DFDS  [2004] ECR I‑8439, paragraph 27; Case C‑495/03 Intermodal Transports  [2005] ECR I‑8151, paragraph 47; and Case C‑183/06 RUMA  [2007] ECR I‑1559, paragraph 27).
17. Finally, the explanatory notes to the CN drawn up by the Commission are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (Case C‑250/05 Turbon International [2006] ECR I‑10531, paragraph 16, and Case C‑370/08 Data I/O  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 30).
18. Here, it is apparent from the wording of headings 8703 and 8713 of the CN themselves that the difference between them results from the fact that the first covers means of transport for persons in general, whereas the second applies specifically to means of transport for disabled persons.
25. Finally, it should be added that the mere fact that those electric mobility scooters may be used, where appropriate, by disabled persons or even may be adapted for use by disabled persons does not affect the tariff classification of such vehicles, since they are suitable for being used for a number of other activities by persons who do not suffer from any disability, but who for one reason or another prefer to travel short distances other than on foot, like, as the referring court indicates, golfers or persons going shopping.
État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Pierre Feltgen and Bacino Charter Company SA.
Date: 2010-12-22
12. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s settled case‑law, in interpreting a provision of European Union law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case 292/82 Merck   [1983] ECR 3781, paragraph 12; Case C-34/05 Schouten  [2007] ECR I‑1687, paragraph 25; and Case C‑433/08 Yaesu Europe  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 24).
16. Moreover, the interpretation set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of this judgment is corroborated by the objective of the exemption scheme set out in Article 15 of the Sixth Directive, which, in relation to exports and like transactions and international transport, is to respect the principle that the relevant goods or services should be taxed at their place of destination (see Case C-97/06 Navicon  [2007] ECR I-8755, paragraph 29).
19. Furthermore, according to settled case-law, VAT exemptions must be interpreted strictly, since they constitute exceptions to the general principle that turnover tax is to be levied on each service supplied for consideration by a taxable person (see, inter alia, Case C-185/89 Velker International Oil Company   [1990] ECR I-2561, paragraph 19, and Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04 Elmeka  [2006] ECR I‑8167, paragraph 15).
20. Furthermore, the interpretation set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of this judgment cannot be challenged by the classification in national law of the services at issue in the main proceedings, which has no bearing on the answer which must be given to the question referred by the national court. It follows from the case-law of the Court and, in particular, from paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Navicon  judgment, which related, specifically, to the interpretation of Article 15(5) of the Sixth Directive, that whether a specific transaction is subject to or exempt from VAT cannot depend on its classification in national law. According to settled case-law, although, as set out in the introductory sentence of Article 15, the Member States are to lay down the conditions for exemptions in order to ensure correct and straightforward application of those exemptions and to prevent any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse, those conditions cannot affect the definition of the subject-matter of the exemptions envisaged.
Donat Cornelius Ebert v Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara.
Date: 2011-02-03
33. In such a situation the holder of a ‘diploma’, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48, such as Mr Ebert, enjoys, in accordance with Article 3, first paragraph, subparagraph (a) thereof, access to the regulated profession of lawyer in the host Member State. However, since the profession is one whose practice requires a precise knowledge of national law and an essential and constant element of which is the provision of advice and/or assistance concerning national law, Article 3 of Directive 89/48 as amended does not prevent the host Member State from requiring, pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) thereof, that the applicant take an aptitude test, provided that that Member State first verifies whether the knowledge acquired by the applicant in the course of his professional experience is capable of covering, in whole or in part, the substantial difference referred to in the first subparagraph of that latter provision (see Case C‑118/09 Koller  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraphs 38 and 39).
39. It is also clear from Article 6(1) of Directive 98/5 that even lawyers practising under their home-country professional title in a host Member State are subject to the same rules of professional conduct as lawyers practising under the professional title of that State (see, to that effect, Case C‑225/09 Jakubowska  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 57).
40. Therefore, it must be stated that neither Directive 89/48 nor Directive 98/5 preclude the application, to any person practising the profession of lawyer in a Member State, particularly as regards the taking up or pursuit thereof, of national provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action justified by the general good, such as rules relating to organisation, qualifications, professional ethics, supervision and liability (see, to that effect, as regards Directive 89/48, Case C‑55/94 Gebhard  [1995] ECR I‑4165, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
41. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara has applied those rules in accordance with the rules of European Union law and, in particular, the principle of non-discrimination (see, to that effect, Case C‑19/92 Kraus  [1993] ECR I‑1663, paragraph 32; Gebhard , paragraph 37; and Case C‑564/07 Commission  v Austria [2009] ECR I‑100, paragraph 31).
Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten.
Date: 2011-02-10
25. However, that option must be assessed in the light of the social objective of Directive 2008/94 which is to guarantee all employees a minimum level of protection in the European Union in the event of the employer’s insolvency through payment of outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships and relating to pay for a specific period (see, to that effect, Case C‑201/01 Walcher [2003] ECR I‑8827, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
26. The Court has already held that the application of a national rule intended to prevent abuse must not prejudice the full effect and uniform application of European Union law in the Member States ( Walcher , paragraph 37).
Bolton Alimentari SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane - Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria.
Date: 2011-02-17
22. With regard, more specifically, to the admissibility of the fourth question, it must be noted that, admittedly, the possibility for a litigant to plead before the court hearing its action the invalidity of provisions in European Union acts presupposes that the party in question had no right of direct action under Article 263 TFEU by which it could challenge provisions the consequences of which it is suffering without having been able to seek their annulment (see TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf , paragraph 23, and Case C‑550/09 E and F  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraphs 45 and 46).
23. Nevertheless, it follows from that case-law that the admissibility of such a direct action must be beyond any doubt ( E and F , paragraph 48 and case-law cited).  In the present case, however, the information set out in the reference for a preliminary ruling and that provided by the Italian Government does not allow the Court to conclude that the admissibility of such a direct action would have been beyond any doubt.
33. The fact that, according to point 15 of the Administrative Arrangement, the declarations for release for free circulation accepted by the national customs authorities on a Sunday are dealt with by the Commission on a Monday cannot call into question the result which follows expressly and unequivocally from the interpretation of Article 308a of the implementing regulation.  By its nature, the Administrative Arrangement cannot derogate from the rules established in that article and accordingly cannot be interpreted in a manner contrary to that article (see, by way of analogy, Joined Cases C‑75/05 P and C‑80/05 P Germany and Others  v Kronofrance  [2008] ECR I‑6619, paragraph 61, and Case C‑369/07 Commission  v Greece  [2009] ECR I‑5703, paragraph 112).
54. Next, it must be borne in mind that Article 239 of the Customs Code is a general equitable provision (Case C-230/06 Militzer & Münch  [2008] ECR I-1895, paragraph 50, and Case C‑204/07 P C.A.S.  v Commission  [2008] ECR I‑6135, paragraph 85).
58. With regard to the question whether the conditions to which application of Article 239 of the Customs Code is subject are satisfied in the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that, in the context of the system of judicial cooperation established by Article 267 TFEU, it is for the referring court to give a ruling in the dispute before it, while it is for the Court of Justice to provide that court with all information necessary for that purpose with regard to European Union law (see, to that effect, Case C‑14/09 Genc  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 31).
60. In accordance with settled case-law, such a special situation presupposes that the person liable is in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business (see, to that effect, C.A.S.  v Commission , paragraph 82 and the case-law cited).
Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV.
Date: 2011-02-17
23. Next, the interpretation given in paragraph 19 above is consistent with the principle that provisions on suspensions of, and relief from, customs duties must correspond to the requirements of legal certainty and take account of the difficulties confronting national customs administrations owing to the wide range and complexity of the tasks which they must carry out (see, to that effect, Ethicon , paragraph 12, and Case C‑247/97 Schoonbroodt [1998] ECR I‑8095, paragraph 23).
The Number Ltd and Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications and British Telecommunications plc.
Date: 2011-02-17
28. In order to ascertain the meaning and scope of Article 8(1) of the Universal Service Directive, it must, first, be viewed against its legislative background (see, by analogy, Case C‑475/03 Banca popolare di Cremona [2006] ECR I‑9373, paragraph 18 and the case‑law cited). Next, it must be interpreted by having regard to its wording, the overall scheme of the directive and the objectives pursued by the legislator.
31. As an exception to the prohibition on imposing specific obligations on operators individually, the obligations which may be imposed under the Universal Service Directive on undertakings designated in accordance with Article 8(1) thereof to provide universal service are to be interpreted strictly.