larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2001-01-25
28 The effect of Articles 1 and 2 of the Eighth Directive is that a taxable person is entitled to a refund of VAT paid in another Member State if he does not have a business or fixed establishment in that State and if he has supplied no goods or services there.
41 Second, it must be borne in mind that, as regards the relationship between Article 9(1) and Article 9(2) of the Sixth Directive, the Court has already held that Article 9(2) sets out a number of specific instances of places where certain services are deemed to be supplied, whereas Article 9(1) lays down the general rule on the matter. The object of those provisions is to avoid, first, conflicts of jurisdiction, which may result in double taxation, and, second, non-taxation, as Article 9(3) indicates, albeit only as regards specific situations. In every situation, the question which arises is whether it is covered by one of the instances mentioned in Article 9(2); if not, it falls within the scope of Article 9(1) (see Case C-327/94 Dudda v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach [1996] ECR I-4595, paragraphs 20 and 21).
Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu (DAFSE) v Frota Azul-Transportes e Turismo Ldª.
Date: 2001-01-25
30 In that regard, it is sufficient to observe, as the Court did in its judgment in Case C-32/95 P Commission v Listeral and Others [1996] ECR I-5373, paragraph 29, that, although a decision to suspend, reduce or withdraw Community assistance may sometimes reflect an assessment and evaluation by the competent national authorities, under Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83, it is the Commission which adopts the final decision and it alone assumes responsibility in law vis-à-vis the beneficiaries.
Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2001-01-30
47 As regards the concept of management of water resources, it follows from the consistent case-law of the Court that an interpretation of a provision of Community law involves a comparison of the language versions (see Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland [1996] ECR I-5403, paragraph 28).
49 In the case of divergence between the language versions of a Community measure, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see in particular, in that regard, Case C-420/98 W.N. [2000] ECR I-2847, paragraph 21).
54 Furthermore, the measures referred to in the three indents of the first subparagraph of Article 130s(2) of the Treaty all imply the involvement of the Community institutions in areas such as fiscal policy, energy policy or town and country planning policy, in which, apart from Community policy on the environment, either the Community has no legislative powers or unanimity within the Council is required.
58 It follows from a consistent line of decisions that in the context of the organisation of the powers of the Community the choice of a legal basis for a measure must rest on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. Those factors include in particular the aim and the content of the measure (see, in particular, Case C-269/97 Commission v Council [2000] ECR I-2257, paragraph 43).
59 If examination of a Community measure reveals that it pursues a twofold purpose or that it has a twofold component and if one of these is identifiable as the main or predominant purpose or component, whereas the other is merely incidental, the act must be based on a single legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant purpose or component (see, to that effect, the judgment in Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council [1999] ECR I-869, paragraphs 39 and 40).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2001-02-01
40 Furthermore, the three conditions set out in that provision are cumulative (Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria, cited above, paragraph 21).
41 As far as the purpose of the Directive is concerned, moreover, the Court has held that the purpose of coordinating at Community level the procedures for the award of public contracts is to eliminate barriers to the freedom to provide services and goods and therefore to protect the interests of traders established in a Member State who wish to offer goods or services to contracting authorities established in another Member State (see, most recently, Case C-380/98 The Queen v H.M. Treasury, ex parte University of Cambridge [2000] ECR I-8035, paragraph 16).
42 Consequently, the aim of the Directive is to avoid both the risk of preference being given to national tenderers or applicants whenever a contract is awarded by the contracting authorities and the possibility that a body financed or controlled by the State, regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law may choose to be guided by considerations other than economic ones (University of Cambridge, paragraph 17).
43 It is in the light of those objectives that contracting authority, including a body governed by public law, must be interpreted in functional terms (see, to that effect, most recently, Case C-353/96 Commission v Ireland [1998] ECR I-8565, paragraph 36).
44 As regards the alternative conditions set out in the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of the Directive, each reflects the close dependency of a body on the State, regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law (University of Cambridge, paragraph 20).
50 In that regard, although, as the Advocate General observes at points 53 to 64 of his Opinion, SA HLMs are commercial companies, their activities are very narrowly circumscribed.
60 Consequently, SA HLMs, which also satisfy at least one of the three alternative criteria referred to in the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of the Directive, thus fulfil the three conditions which characterise a body governed by public law within the meaning of the Directive and are contracting authorities.
Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH.
Date: 2001-02-08
31 The Court has already held that, under Article 6 of the Directive, national rules concerning the burden of proof are not to be affected, as such, by the Directive (Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 Kampelmann and Others [1997] ECR I-6907, paragraph 30).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2001-02-14
7 The Court has consistently held that amendments to national legislation are irrelevant for the purposes of giving judgment on the subject-matter of an action for failure to fulfil obligations if they have not been implemented before the expiry of the period set by the reasoned opinion (see Case C-123/94 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1457, paragraph 7, and Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland [1999] ECR I-5901, paragraph 86).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2001-02-15
31 As the Court held in its order in Case C-341/97 Commission v Netherlands [2000] ECR I-6611, at paragraph 17, it follows from the function assigned to the pre-litigation stage of proceedings for failure of a State to fulfil its obligations that the purpose of the letter of formal notice is, first, to delimit the subject-matter of the dispute and to indicate to the Member State, which is invited to submit its observations, the factors enabling it to prepare its defence (Case C-289/94 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, paragraph 15) and, second, to enable the Member State to comply before proceedings are brought before the Court (Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraphs 23 and 24).
32 Also, in order for a letter of formal notice to be issued, a prior failure by the Member State concerned to fulfil an obligation owed by it must be alleged (Commission v Netherlands, cited above, paragraph 18).
34 The contrary view would result in the detailed opinion constituting a conditional formal notice whose existence would be dependent on the action taken by the Member State concerned in relation to the opinion. The requirements of legal certainty, which are inherent in any procedure capable of becoming contentious, preclude such incertitude (Commission v Netherlands, paragraph 20).
The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, intervener: Justice.
Date: 2001-02-20
19 As the Court held in paragraph 10 of Micheletti and Others, cited above, [u]nder international law, it is for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality.
Office national des pensions (ONP) v Gioconda Camarotto (C-52/99) and Giuseppina Vignone (C-53/99).
Date: 2001-02-22
21 First, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in the absence of relevant Community rules, it is for the national legal order of each Member State to designate the competent courts and to lay down the procedural rules for proceedings designed to ensure protection of the rights which individuals acquire through the direct effect of Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and are not framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see, most recently, Case C-78/98 Preston and Others [2000] ECR I-3201, paragraph 31).
The first question
28 The Court has always accepted that it is compatible with Community law for reasonable limitation periods for bringing proceedings to be laid down in the interests of legal certainty (Case 33/76 Rewe [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5, Case 45/76 Comet [1976] ECR 2043, paragraphs 17 and 18, and Case 61/79 Denkavit ltaliana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 23).
33 It is apparent both from the terms and the scheme of Article 95a(4) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, that application of the provisions of Regulation No 1248/92 to pension rights acquired before 1 June 1992 is subject to an express application being made by the person concerned (see Baldone, cited above, paragraph 16).
Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ldª, intervener Ministério Público.
Date: 2001-02-22
24 Thus, the Court of Justice has held that the inward processing relief arrangements were established so as not to put at a disadvantage internationally Community undertakings which use goods from non-member countries in order to manufacture products for export by giving them the possibility of acquiring such goods under the same conditions as undertakings from non-member countries. Thus, that system allows goods imported from non-member countries to escape customs duties if they undergo certain working or processing operations in the Community and are then re-exported as compensating products outside the Community (Case C-437/93 Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v Temic Telefunken [1995] ECR I-1687, paragraphs 18 and 19).
35 It is clear from the case-law of the Court that an economic operator is not entitled to expect that, when he has benefited from decisions of a national authority that do not comply with a clear and unequivocal rule of Community law, the same authority will adopt a further decision, or retain an existing decision unaltered, in breach of Community law (see, to that effect, Case C-325/96 Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa v Sub-director Geral das Alfândegas [1997] ECR I-7249, paragraph 22).
Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2001-03-06
41 It must be borne in mind that, provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. That appraisal does not therefore constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject as such to review by the Court of Justice (Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraph 24).
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Date: 2001-03-08
20 It is settled case-law that the Court cannot in any event take account of measures adopted by a Member State after the commencement of an action for failure to fulfil its obligations in order to comply with those obligations (Case C-71/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-5991, paragraph 18) and that, moreover, a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its own legal order to justify failure to implement a directive within the prescribed period (Case C-274/98 Commission v Spain [2000] ECR I-2823, paragraph 19).
26 Here, the Commission has not challenged the fact that, as the Portuguese Government stated at the hearing, it is a body governed by public law, acting as a public authority, that places the toll bridge over the Tagus in Lisbon at the disposal of its users.
28 It is true that, if exemption of the activity in question from VAT would lead to significant distortions of competition within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the provision of access to that bridge on payment of a toll would be taxable by virtue of that same provision. In this case, however, the Commission has not argued the existence of such distortions at any time during the pre-litigation procedure.
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2001-03-08
22 It must be borne in mind that the objective of Regulation No 1408/71, as stated in the second and fourth recitals of the preamble, is to ensure free movement of employed and self-employed workers within the Community, while respecting the special character of national social security legislation, by drawing up only a system of co-ordination.
23 To that end, as is clear from the fifth, sixth and tenth recitals, that provision upholds the principle of equality of treatment of workers under the various national laws and seeks to guarantee the equality of treatment of all workers occupied on the territory of a Member State as effectively as possible and not to penalise workers who exercise their right to free movement.
25 It must be borne in mind in that respect that the fact that a worker is required to pay, in respect of the same earned income, social charges arising under the legislation of several States, although he can be an insured person only in respect of the legislation of one State, means that the worker must pay contributions twice over, contrary to the provisions of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 (see in particular Case 102/76 Perenboom [1977] ECR 815, paragraph 13, and Case C-60/93 Aldewereld [1994] ECR I-2991, paragraph 26).
29 Admittedly, depending on the level of personal contributions borne by self-employed artists and journalists in the various Member States, such a system can lead, in certain cases, to a situation where, for the same remuneration offered by the undertaking using the services of various artists and journalists in Germany, the final level of remuneration, after the levying of the aforementioned contributions, is less for an artist or journalist falling within the scope of a scheme other than that established by the KSVG than for an artist or journalist insured under that legislation. However, such a situation is inherent in the mechanism of straightforward co-ordination resulting from Regulation No 1408/71, which leaves the Member States competent to determine their own social security schemes and, in particular, to set the level of the contributions required of workers and economic operators, while providing in certain cases that a worker working in a Member State falls under the social security legislation of another Member State.
38 Moreover, in infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to place before the Court the information needed to enable it to determine whether there is such an infringement (see, in particular, Case C-157/94 Commission v Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, paragraph 59).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2001-03-08
29 Concerning the second limb of the Commission's second complaint, it should be recalled that, although many purification plans limited to the regional level may in principle constitute a plan within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Directive, the sum of the documents submitted by a Member State must in any event reveal an overall plan that reflects a comprehensive and coherent approach (see, to that effect, Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983, paragraph 25; Case C-207/97 Commission v Belgium [1999] ECR I-275, paragraph 40).
30 It should also be emphasised that, by contrast, incomplete practical measures and fragmentary legislation cannot discharge the obligation of a Member State to draw up a comprehensive programme with a view to attaining certain objectives (see, to that effect, Case C-298/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-3301, paragraph 16).
38 It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in the Member State as it stood 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-69/99 Commission v United Kingdom [2000] ECR I-10979, paragraph 22).
Criminal proceedings against Georgius van der Burg.
Date: 2001-03-08
20 Under Article 1(1) of Directive 83/189, for the purposes of the directive a technical specification is a specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of a product. Technical specifications for the purposes of Directive 83/189 must thus refer to the product as such (see Case C-314/98 Snellers Auto's v Algemeen Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer [2000] ECR I-8633, paragraph 38). However, legislation such as Article C.11.1(1) of the Decree, which merely prohibits a marketing method, does not lay down the characteristics required of a product.
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2001-03-08
9 For the reason stated by the Advocate General in the final sentence of point 13 of his Opinion, namely that a Member State cannot rely on difficulties in interpreting a directive in order to delay transposing it until after the prescribed period has expired, and in accordance with the case-law to which the Advocate General refers in that context, the action must be held to be well founded in so far as it relates to the failure by the German authorities to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 96/43.
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2001-03-08
9 It should be remembered that, under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, the Member States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. Such action includes directives which, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, are binding as to the result to be achieved upon each Member State to which they are addressed. That obligation involves, for each Member State to which a directive is addressed, the adoption, within the framework of its national legal system, of all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective which it pursues (see Case C-336/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-3771, paragraph 19).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2001-03-08
7 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, a directive is binding, as to the results to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed. It has consistently been held that this obligation entails compliance with the periods set by directives (see, inter alia, Case 10/76 Commission v Italy [1976] ECR 1359, paragraphs 11 and 12, and Case C-69/99 Commission v United Kingdom [2000] ECR I-10979, paragraph 21).
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Date: 2001-03-08
28 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, a directive is binding, as to the results to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed. This obligation entails compliance with the time-limits set by directives (Case 10/76 Commission v Italy [1976] ECR 1359, paragraph 12).
30 Next, none of the national regulations to which the Luxembourg Government referred during the pre-litigation procedure in order to show that it had complied with its obligations contains provisions which are sufficiently precise in order to meet the obligation in Annex III 1, point 3, to the Directive to establish a balance between, on the one hand, the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of crops and, on the other, the nitrogen supply to the crops, in particular by the addition of nitrogen compounds from chemical fertilisers.
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2001-03-15
40 It is settled case-law that a system of taxation may be considered compatible with Article 95 of the Treaty only if it is such as to exclude any possibility of imported products being taxed more heavily than similar domestic products (Case C-228/98 Dounias [2000] ECR I-577, paragraph 41, and the case-law cited therein).
42 In order to determine whether products are similar within the terms of the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 95, it is necessary to consider whether they have similar characteristics and meet the same needs from the point of view of consumers (Case 106/84 Commission v Denmark [1986] ECR 833, paragraph 12).
43 Furthermore, in paragraph 28 of the judgment in Tarantik, cited above, the Court held, first, that products such as cars are similar for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty if their characteristics and the needs which they serve place them in a competitive relationship and, second, that the degree of competition between two models depends on the extent to which they meet various requirements regarding price, size, comfort, performance, fuel consumption, durability, reliability and other matters.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2001-03-15
10 In that regard, it must be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in particular, Case C-470/98 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-4657, paragraph 11).