larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
J.C. van Ardennen v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen.
Date: 2011-11-17
27. In that regard, it should first be recalled that it follows from the Court’s case-law that the social objective of Directive 80/987 is to guarantee employees a minimum of protection at European Union level 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 Case C‑19/01, C‑50/01 and C‑84/01 Barsotti and Others [2004] ECR I‑2005, paragraph 35, and Visciano , paragraph 27).
34. Furthermore, it should be noted that Article 4 of Directive 80/987 must be interpreted strictly and in conformity with its social objective, which is to guarantee a minimum of protection to all employees (see Case C‑125/97 Regeling  [1998] ECR I-4493, paragraph 20). To this effect, the cases in which it is permitted to limit the payment obligation of the guarantee institutions are listed exhaustively and the provisions concerned must be interpreted strictly, having regard to their being derogations and to the social objective of the Directive.
37. It should also be noted that it is not a question, in the main proceedings, of the payment of sums going beyond the social objective of Directive 80/987, payment which Article 4 of that directive authorises the Member States to limit (see, to that effect, Barsotti and Others , paragraph 34). Therefore, irrespective of whether Directive 80/987 precludes a rule that the income actually earned by the interested party during the notice period is deducted from the amount of the benefit, a national rule which, like that in issue in the main proceedings, reduces the amount of the reimbursement of salary claims automatically and at a flat-rate directly prejudices the minimum level of protection pursued by Directive 80/987 in the event of the employer’s insolvency.
Circul Globus Bucureşti (Circ & Variete Globus Bucureşti) v Uniunea Compozitorilor şi Muzicologilor din România - Asociaţia pentru Drepturi de Autor (UCMR - ADA).
Date: 2011-11-24
28. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of EU law only as regards their application in a new Member State with effect from the date of that State’s accession to the European Union (see, to that effect, Case C‑302/04 Ynos  [2006] ECR I‑371, paragraph 36, and Case C‑64/06 Telefónica O2 Czech Republic  [2007] ECR I‑4887, paragraph 23).
29. As the events in the main proceedings occurred in part after the date of Romania’s accession to the European Union, the Court has jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred (see, to that effect, Case C‑96/08 CIBA [2010] ECR I‑2911, paragraph 15).
Consideration of the questions referred
Questions 1 and 2
36. Thus, in order to exclude such direct public representation and performance from the scope of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in the context of Directive 2001/29, that recital explained that communication to the public covers all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates (see Football Association Premier League and Others , paragraph 202).
38. Next, regarding the aim of Directive 2001/29, it should be noted that it is clear from recitals 2 and 5 thereto that that directive seeks to create a general and flexible framework at EU level in order to foster the development of the information society and to adapt and supplement the current law on copyright and related rights in order to respond to technological development, which has created new ways of performing protected works.
Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG (C-323/10, C-324/10 and C-326/10) and Doux Geflügel GmbH (C-325/10) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 2011-11-24
100. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the extrapolation made by the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas is laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92. Under that provision, where only part of the goods covered by a declaration are examined, the results of that examination shall be taken to apply to all the goods covered by that declaration.
101. That fiction relating to uniform quality does not apply solely to examinations carried out on the basis of the customs legislation, Article 70 being one of the general customs provisions which apply to all export declarations relating to goods qualifying for export refunds, without prejudice to special rules (see, to that effect, Nowaco Germany , paragraphs 47, 49 and 56).
Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr.
Date: 2011-12-01
19. Regarding the first condition, relating to the increase in assets, it should be recalled that, inasmuch as the assets of a company are defined as all the property which the members have contributed, together with any increase in its value, an increase in the assets includes, in principle, every kind of increase in the net assets of a capital company (Case C‑46/04 Aro Tubi Trafilerie [2006] ECR I‑3009, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). The Court has thus held that the absorption of a company’s losses by one of its members constitutes a contribution that increases the assets of the company, since it restores the assets to the level which they had reached before the losses were sustained ( Siegen , paragraph 13).
20. Regarding the second condition, relating to the increase in the value of the company’s shares, it should be observed that, inasmuch as the absorption of a company’s losses by one of its members restores the assets to the level which they had reached before the losses were sustained, that operation contributes to increasing the company’s economic potential. Such absorption must therefore be regarded as liable to increase the value of its shares for the purposes of Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335 (see, to that effect, Case C‑15/89 Deltakabel  [1991] ECR I‑241, paragraph 13, and Case C‑249/89 Trave-Schiffahrtsgesellschaft [1991] ECR I‑257, paragraph 13).
22. However, at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment in Siegen , the Court held that, although the absorption by a member of losses incurred by a company must be regarded as a contribution that increases the company’s assets, the same is not true if those losses are absorbed pursuant to a profit and loss transfer agreement entered into before the losses were sustained, since that undertaking means that losses subsequently incurred by the company will have no effect on the level of the company’s assets.
23. It follows from the judgment in Siegen that the Court has recognised an exception where the member absorbs the losses pursuant to an undertaking entered into by him before those losses are sustained, since that undertaking means that losses subsequently incurred by the company will have no effect on the level of the company’s assets. This interpretation of the judgment in Siegen  is confirmed by Case C‑392/00 Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken [2002] ECR I‑7397, paragraph 21.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt.
Date: 2011-12-08
29. Article 13 of Regulation No 1768/92 must therefore be interpreted not solely on the basis of its wording, but also in consideration of the overall scheme and objectives of the system of which it is a part (see, to that effect, Case C‑127/00 Hässle [2003] ECR I‑14781, paragraph 55 and Case C‑482/07 AHP Manufacturing [2009] ECR I‑7295, paragraph 27).
31. Regarding, secondly, the objectives of Regulation No 1768/92, it must be recalled that the fundamental objective of that regulation, as set out in the first and second recitals in the preamble thereto, is to ensure sufficient protection to encourage pharmaceutical research, which plays a decisive role in the continuing improvement in public health (see, to that effect, AHP Manufacturing , cited above, paragraph 30).
32. In that regard, the third and fourth recitals in the preamble give as a reason for the adoption of that regulation the fact that the period of effective protection under the patent is insufficient to cover the investment put into pharmaceutical research, taking into account the period that elapses between the lodging of a patent application for a new medicinal product and the grant of the marketing authorisation for it (see, to that effect, AHP Manufacturing , cited above, paragraph 30).
33. Regulation No 1768/92 thus seeks to make up for that insufficiency by creating an SPC for medicinal products. As is apparent from the ninth recital, the regulation acknowledges, in addition to that objective, the need, in a sector as complex and sensitive as the pharmaceutical sector, to take into account all the interests at stake, including public health, by ensuring that the monopoly on exploitation thus guaranteed does not exceed that which is necessary to cover the investment and does not unduly delay the moment when the product in question comes into the public domain (see, to that effect, AHP Manufacturing , cited above, paragraphs 30 and 39).
Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune.
Date: 2011-12-15
25. According to settled case-law, the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (see, inter alia, Case C‑72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others  [1996] ECR I‑5403, paragraph 38; Case C‑549/07 Wallentin-Hermann  [2008] ECR I‑11061, paragraph 17; and Case C‑473/07 Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières and OABA  [2009] ECR I‑319, paragraphs 23 and 24).
26. Likewise, the need for a uniform interpretation of the various language versions of a provision of European Union law also requires that, in the case of divergence between those language versions, the provision in question be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part ( Kraaijeveld and Others , paragraph 28, and Case C‑63/06 Profisa  [2007] ECR I‑3239, paragraph 14).
31. As the purpose of Directive 96/61 has therefore been broadly defined, subheading 6.6(c) of Annex I to that directive cannot, as Mr Møller and Ireland suggest, be interpreted restrictively in such a way as to exclude places intended for gilts (see, by analogy, Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières and OABA , paragraph 27).
37. Directive 91/630 thus has a manifestly different purpose from that assigned to Directive 96/61 and, consequently, the provisions of Directive 91/630 cannot be used to determine how the concept of ‘sow’ in subheading 6.6(c) of Annex I to Directive 96/61 is to be interpreted.
38. Furthermore, it is important, first, to state that Directive 96/61 does not contain any reference to Directive 91/630 as regards the definition of the activities which it covers and, secondly, to reiterate that, as has already been established in paragraph 27 of the present judgment, Article 2 of Directive 91/630 states that the definitions which that directive contains are specific to it.
Suiker Unie GmbH - Zuckerfabrik Anklam v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 2012-01-19
20. Regarding the aim of differentiated export refunds, it is settled case-law that they are intended to gain and maintain access for European Union exports to the markets of the non-member countries concerned and the differentiation in the refund is based on the desire to take account of the particular characteristics of each import market in which the European Union wishes to play a part (see Case C‑218/09 SGS Belgium and Others  [2010] ECR I‑2373, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
21. It is clear from that case-law that, if it sufficed, in order to qualify for payment of the refund, for the goods exported in the unaltered state simply to be unloaded in the non-member country, the raison d’être of the differentiated system would be disregarded ( SGS Belgium and Others , paragraph 39). On the contrary, as the Commission points out, the differentiation system requires that the product in question effectively and definitively reaches the country of destination, in the sense that it can be marketed there. That system is thus distinct from the single-rate refund system.
25. However, it is clear that the release of a product for ‘inward processing’ is not done with the aim of marketing that product in the third country concerned. On the contrary, the very aim of that system is to exempt from customs duties only those goods which are brought into the national territory purely on a temporary basis in order that they may be worked, repaired or processed, and then re-exported (see Case C‑158/08 Pometon  [2009] ECR I‑4695, paragraph 24).
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Nike International Ltd.
Date: 2012-01-19
57. To the extent that, by the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that the Boards of Appeal of OHIM are required to apply the OHIM Guidelines, it is settled case-law, as OHIM argues, that the decisions concerning registration of a sign as a Community trade mark which those Boards of Appeal are called on to take under Regulation No 40/94 are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion and, accordingly, the legality of those decisions must be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation, as interpreted by the Courts of the European Union (see, to that effect, Case C‑37/03 P BioID v OHIM [2005] ECR I‑7975, paragraph 47; Case C‑173/04 P Deutsche SiSi-Werke v OHIM  [2006] ECR I‑551, paragraph 48; and Joined Cases C‑202/08 P and C‑208/08 P American Clothing Associates v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates  [2009] ECR I‑6933, paragraph 57).
ADV Allround Vermittlungs AG, in liquidation v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf.
Date: 2012-01-26
26. As is clear from settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of European Union law, it is necessary to consider not only the wording of that provision but also the context in which it occurs and the objective pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C‑114/05 Gillan Beach  [2006] ECR I‑2427, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
27. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 9 of the Sixth Directive contains rules for determining the place where services are deemed to be supplied for tax 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. In accordance with settled case-law, the object of those provisions is to avoid, first, conflicts of jurisdiction which may result in double taxation, and, secondly, non-taxation (see, inter alia, Case C‑327/94 Dudda [1996] ECR I‑4595, paragraph 20; Gillan Beach , paragraph 14; and Case C‑291/07 Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet  [2008] ECR I‑8255, paragraph 24).
31. Furthermore, that interpretation is consistent with the principle of legal certainty since, by making more predictable the determination of the place where the service is deemed to be supplied, it simplifies the application of the provisions of the Sixth Directive and contributes to ensuring accurate and reliable collection of VAT (see, to that effect, Case C‑421/10 Stoppelkamp  [2011] ECR I‑9309, paragraph 34).
35. However, in accordance with settled case-law, in the absence of European Union rules in the area, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State, in particular, to designate the authorities responsible and to lay down detailed procedural rules for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from European Union law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness) (see, inter alia, Case C‑228/96 Aprile  [1998] ECR I‑7141, paragraph 18, and Case C‑472/08 Alstom Power Hydro  [2010] ECR I‑623, paragraph 17).
Pak-Holdco sp. zoo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu.
Date: 2012-02-16
28. The first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, sets out a clear and unconditional obligation, on the part of Member States, to exempt from capital duty transactions which, on 1 July 1984, were exempted or taxed at a rate of 0.50% or less. That obligation, the meaning of which is unambiguous, was also binding on the Republic of Poland as from 1 May 2004 (see, to that effect, Optimus-Telecomunicações , paragraph 30).
30. Lastly, it must be observed that the date of 1 July 1984, which is taken as the relevant date under Article 7(1) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, is equally applicable to the Republic of Poland. In the case of accession to the European Union, a reference to a date laid down in European Union law, in the absence of a provision to the contrary in the Act of Accession or any other European Union document, applies equally to the State which is acceding, even if that date is earlier than the date of its accession. So far as the Republic of Poland is concerned, no provision which differs on that point is to be found either in the Act of Accession of that State or in any other European Union document (see, to that effect, Optimus‑Telecomunicações , paragraph 32, and Case C‑212/10 Logstor ROR Polska  [2011] ECR I‑5453, paragraph 33).
32. That interpretation is not called into question by paragraph 21 of the judgment in Case C‑397/07 Commission  v Spain , in which the Court merely defined the scope of the complaints which had been raised by the European Commission in the case giving rise to that judgment by specifying the transactions which were, as from 1 January 1986 (the date of the Kingdom of Spain’s accession to the European Communities), mandatorily exempted from capital duty.
37. Such an addition would also run counter to the objective pursued by that provision, which excludes those amounts which have already been subjected to capital duty from the basis of assessment for taxation in order to avoid double taxation of those amounts, with the aim of promoting the free movement of capital (see, by analogy, Case C‑280/91 Viessmann  [1993] ECR I‑971, paragraph 21, and Case C‑441/08 Elektrownia Pątnów II  [2009] ECR I‑10799, paragraph 40). The addition of a further condition to those imposed by the wording of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Directive 69/335, to the effect that the assets in question must also belong to the company which has had an increase in capital, would allow for double taxation of the same amount if the transaction in question were to involve separate companies.
Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento SL.
Date: 2012-02-16
33. However, it is clear that the wording of Article 19(1) of the Regulation does not make any distinction on the basis of whether the third party is the holder of a registered Community design or not.
34. Thus, that provision states that a registered Community design is to confer on its holder the exclusive right to use it and to prevent ‘any third party’ not having his consent from using it.
44. In those circumstances, only an interpretation of the term ‘any third party’ within the meaning of Article 19(1) of the Regulation as encompassing the third party holder of a later registered Community design is capable of ensuring attainment of the objective of effective protection of registered Community designs pursued by the Regulation, as well as the effectiveness of infringement proceedings.
Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik v HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG.
Date: 2012-02-16
19. In that regard, it should be borne in mind, first of all, that Article 7 of Directive 90/314 places the travel organiser under an obligation to hold sufficient security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency, the purpose of that security being to protect consumers against the financial risks arising from the insolvency of package travel organisers (see Joined Cases C‑178/94, C‑179/94 and C‑188/94 to C‑190/94 Dillenkofer and Others  [1996] ECR I‑4845, paragraphs 34 and 35).
20. Thus, the fundamental objective of that provision is to ensure that the repatriation of the consumer and the refund of money paid over are guaranteed in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy on the part of a travel organiser (see, to that effect, Dillenkofer and Others , paragraphs 35 and 36).
22. In that connection, the Court has held, in paragraph 74 of its judgment in Case C‑140/97 Rechberger and Others  [1999] ECR I‑3499, that Article 7 of Directive 90/314 imposes an obligation of result, that is to say, an obligation to guarantee package travellers the refund of money paid over and their repatriation in the event of the travel organiser’s bankruptcy, and that such a guarantee is specifically aimed at arming consumers against the consequences of the bankruptcy, whatever the causes of it may be.
23. The Court inferred from this that facts such as imprudent conduct on the part of the travel organiser or the occurrence of exceptional or unforeseeable events cannot constitute an obstacle to the refund of money paid over or to the repatriation of consumers under Article 7 of Directive 90/314 (see Rechberger and Others , paragraphs 75 and 76).
24. Moreover, such an interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 90/314 is substantiated by the objective which that directive must pursue, which is to ensure a high level of protection for consumers (see Dillenkofer and Others , paragraph 39).
Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH.
Date: 2012-03-01
26. It is settled case-law that, in the case of divergence between the different language versions of a European Union text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to, inter alia, the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part (see Case C‑351/10 Laki  [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
31. In view of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred is that the concept of ‘biocidal products’ set out in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8 must be interpreted as including even products which act only by indirect means on the target harmful organisms, so long as they contain one or more active substances provoking a chemical or biological action which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms.
Costs
Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cía de Seguros y Reaseguros SAE.
Date: 2012-03-01
25. In that regard, it must be borne in mind, firstly, that Directive 85/577 does not contain any explicit definition of the concept of ‘insurance contract’. Furthermore, nor does that directive refer expressly to the law of the Member States on that point. Thus, as dictated by the requirements of both uniform application of European Union law and the principle of equality, the scope of the term ‘insurance contract’ must be sought having regard to the context of the directive and must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union (see, to that effect, Case 64/81 Corman  [1982] ECR 13, paragraph 8, and Case C‑98/07 Nordania Finans and BG Factoring  [2008] ECR I‑1281, paragraph 17).
26. Secondly, as is apparent from settled case-law, derogations from the rules of European Union law for the protection of consumers must be interpreted strictly (see Case C‑481/99 Heininger  [2001] ECR I‑9945, paragraph 31, and Case C‑215/08 E. Friz  [2010] ECR I‑2947, paragraph 32).
27. However, as the Court has already made clear, the protection of consumers pursued by Directive 85/577 is not absolute and is subject to certain limits (see Case C‑412/06 Hamilton  [2008] ECR I‑2383, paragraphs 39 and 40, and E. Friz , paragraph 44). The exclusions in Article 3(2) of Directive 85/577 form part of those limits. Too narrow an interpretation of those exclusions would have the consequence of depriving them of their effectiveness and, accordingly, cannot be accepted