larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ANA - Aeroportos de Portugal SA.
Date: 2007-07-05
19. The Court has held that it follows, both from recital 25 of Directive 96/67 and from Article 16(1) and (3) of that directive, that the airport managing authority is authorised to collect a fee in return for granting access to airport installations. Those installations must be taken to mean the infrastructure and equipment made available by the airport. By contrast, the Court has held that the airport managing authority had no right to charge an access fee to the groundhandling market in addition to the fee for use of the airport installations (see, to that effect, Case C-363/01 Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen [2003] ECR I-11893, paragraphs 37 to 40, 44 and 60).
31. It is sufficient to state that Articles 3 and 4 EC specify the fields and objectives to which the activities of the European Community are to relate, and do not lay down obligations on Member States or public or private bodies (see, to that effect, Case C-9/99 Échirolles Distribution  [2000] ECR I-8207, paragraph 22). Since those activities have been detailed in other parts of the EC Treaty and in Community implementing acts such as Directive 96/67, it is necessary to reply to the referring court only with regard to that directive.
The fourth question
33. According to settled case-law, references for a preliminary ruling must indicate the precise reasons which caused the referring court to question itself as to the interpretation of Community law and to consider that it was necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling (see the order  in Case C-116/00 Laguillaumie [2000] ECR I-4979, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited, as well as Case C-36/99 Idéal tourisme [2000] ECR I-6049, paragraph 20). Thus, the Court has held that it is essential that the national court should give, at the very least, some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions which it requires to be interpreted and on the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (order in Case C-167/94 Grau Gomis and Others [1995] ECR I-1023, paragraph 9).
Société thermale d'Eugénie-les-Bains v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie.
Date: 2007-07-18
19. It follows from the case-law of the Court that a reply in favour of the first approach outlined in the question referred for a preliminary ruling may be given only if there is a direct link between the service rendered and the consideration received, the sums paid constituting genuine consideration for an identifiable service supplied in the context of a legal relationship in which performance is reciprocal (see, to that effect, Case 102/86 Apple and Pear Development Council [1988] ECR 1443, paragraphs 11, 12 and 16; Case C‑16/93 Tolsma  [1994] ECR I‑743, paragraph 14; Case C‑174/00 Kennemer Golf  [2002] ECR I‑3293, paragraph 39; and Case C‑210/04 FCE Bank  [2006] ECR I‑2803, paragraph 34).
26. Since the obligation to make a reservation arises from the contract for accommodation itself and not from the payment of a deposit, there is no direct connection between the service rendered and the consideration received ( Apple and Pear Development Council , paragraphs 11 and 12; Tolsma , paragraph 13; and Kennemer Golf , paragraph 39). The fact that the amount of the deposit is applied towards the price of the reserved room, if the client takes up occupancy, confirms that the deposit cannot constitute the consideration for the supply of an independent and identifiable service.
32. Whereas, in situations where performance of the contract follows its normal course, the deposit is applied towards the price of the services supplied by the hotelier and is therefore subject to VAT, the retention of the deposit at issue in the main proceedings is, by contrast, triggered by the client’s exercise of the cancellation option made available to him and serves to compensate the hotelier following the cancellation. Such compensation does not constitute the fee for a service and forms no part of the taxable amount for VAT purposes (see, to that effect, as regards interest applied on account of late payment, Case 222/81 BAZ Bausystem  [1982] ECR 2527, paragraphs 8 to 11).
Criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger.
Date: 2007-07-18
29. In that respect, the Court has already held, first, at paragraph 36 in Case C‑436/04 Van Esbroeck [2006] ECR I‑2333, that the only relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of Article 54 of the CISA is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together and, second, at paragraph 42 of that judgment, that that criterion applies irrespective of the legal classification given to those acts or the legal interest protected (see also Case C‑150/05 Van Straaten  [2006] ECR I‑9327, paragraphs 48 and 53).
33. In that respect, it must be pointed out that, because there is no harmonisation of national criminal law, considerations based on the legal interest protected might create as many barriers to freedom of movement within the Schengen area as there are penal systems in the Contracting States (see Van Esbroeck , paragraph 35).
34. Consequently, it must be confirmed that the competent national courts which are called upon to determine whether there is identity of the material acts must confine themselves to examining whether those acts constitute a set of facts which are inextricably linked together in time, in space and by their subject-matter (see, to that effect, Van Esbroeck , paragraph 38), and considerations based on the legal interest protected are not to be deemed relevant.
35. As regards more specifically a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it should be recalled that the Court has already held that punishable acts consisting of exporting and importing the same illegal goods and which are prosecuted in different CISA Contracting States constitute conduct which may be covered by the notion of ‘same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the CISA (see, to that effect, Van Esbroeck , paragraph 42, Van Straaten , paragraph 51, and Case C‑467/04 Gasparini and Others  [2006] ECR I‑9199, paragraph 57).
Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2007-07-18
57. In that regard, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, complaints based on findings of fact and on the assessment of those facts in the judgment under appeal are admissible on appeal where the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance has made findings of fact which the documents in the file show to be substantially incorrect or that it has distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it (see, to that effect, Case C-82/01 P Aéroports de Paris  v Commission  [2002] ECR I‑9297, paragraph 56, and Case C‑229/05 P PKK and KNK  v Council  [2007] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 35).
60. As to whether the ground of appeal is well founded, it should be recalled that there is distortion of the clear sense of the evidence where, without recourse to new evidence, the assessment of the existing evidence appears to be clearly incorrect ( PKK and KNK  v Council , paragraph 37, and, to that effect, see also Case C‑551/03 P General Motors  v Commission  [2006] ECR I‑3173, paragraph 54).
63. However, as was pointed out by the Advocate General in points 68 to 72 of his Opinion, the inferences drawn by the Court of First Instance from those letters are not consistent with the meaning and implications of the letters read as a whole.
74. The Court notes however that, as is clear from Recitals 5, 6 and 9 in the preamble thereto, Directive 91/414 seeks to remove barriers to intra-Community trade in plant products, while maintaining a high level of protection of the environment and of human and animal health (see also Case C‑138/05 Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie  [2006] ECR I‑8339, paragraph 43).
75. In that context, as the Court of First Instance rightly held in paragraph 95 of the judgment under appeal, if the Commission is to be able to pursue effectively the objective assigned to it, account being taken of the complex technical assessments which it must undertake, it must be recognised as enjoying a broad discretion.
76. However, the exercise of that discretion is not excluded from review by the Court. The Court has consistently held that in the context of such a review the Community judicature must verify whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts admitted by the Commission have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers (Case 98/78 Racke  [1979] ECR 69, paragraph 5, and Case C‑16/90 Nölle  [1991] ECR I‑5163, paragraph 12).
77. In particular, where a party claims that the institution competent in the matter has committed a manifest error of appraisal, the Community judicature must verify whether that institution has examined, carefully and impartially, all the relevant facts of the individual case, facts which support the conclusions reached (see, inter alia, Case C‑269/90 Technische Universität München  [1991] ECR I‑5469, paragraph 14).
Criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink.
Date: 2007-07-18
22. In that respect, it should be noted that Article 54 of the CISA applies ratione temporis  to criminal proceedings such as those in the main proceedings. Although it is true that the CISA was not yet in force in the Netherlands at the time of Ms Kraaijenbrink’s first conviction in that State, it was, however, in force in the two States concerned when the court before which the second proceedings were brought considered the conditions governing the applicability of the ne bis in idem  principle, which prompted this reference for a preliminary ruling (see, to that effect, Case C‑436/04 Van Esbroeck  [2006] ECR I‑2333, paragraph 24).
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling
The first question
23. It must be pointed out at the outset that the fact, referred to in the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, that the legal classification of the acts in respect of which the sentence was passed in the first Contracting State differs from that of the acts in respect of which the proceedings were brought in the second State is irrelevant, since a divergent legal classification of the same acts in two different Contracting States is no obstacle to the application of Article 54 of the CISA (see Van Esbroeck , paragraph 31).
24. Moreover, Article 71 of the CISA, also referred to in the first question, does not contain any element which might restrict the scope of Article 54 of the CISA (see Van Esbroeck , paragraph 40). It follows that the reference to existing United Nations Conventions in Article 71 cannot be understood as hindering the application of the ne bis in idem  principle laid down in Article 54 (see Van Esbroeck , paragraph 41).
26. In order to answer that question, it should be noted that the Court has already held that the only relevant criterion for the application of Article 54 of the CISA is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of concrete circumstances which are inextricably linked together (see Van Esbroeck , paragraph 36; Case C‑467/04 Gasparini and Others  [2006] ECR I‑9199, paragraph 54, and Case C‑150/05 Van Straaten  [2006] ECR I‑9327, paragraph 48).
27. In order to assess whether such a set of concrete circumstances exists, the competent national courts must determine whether the material acts in the two proceedings constitute a set of facts which are inextricably linked together in time, in space and by their subject-matter (see, to that effect, Van Esbroeck , paragraph 38; Gasparini and Others , paragraph 56, and Van Straaten , paragraph 52).
F.T.S. International BV v Belastingdienst - Douane West.
Date: 2007-07-18
21. At the outset it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the Council has conferred upon the Commission, acting in cooperation with the customs experts of the Member States, a broad discretion to define the subject-matter of tariff headings falling to be considered for the classification of particular goods. However, the Commission’s power to adopt the measures mentioned in Article 9(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of Regulation No 2658/87 does not authorise it to alter the subject-matter of the tariff headings which have been defined on the basis of the HS established by the Convention whose scope the Community has undertaken, under Article 3 thereof, not to modify (see Case C-267/94 France  v Commission  [1995] ECR I-4845, paragraphs 19 and 20, and Case C-15/05 Kawasaki Motors Europe  [2006] ECR I-3657, paragraph 35).
26. In order to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it, the classification of the goods at issue in the main proceedings must be examined.
27. The Court has consistently held 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 notes to the sections or chapters (Case C‑396/02 DFDS  [2004] ECR I-8439, paragraph 27, and Case C-495/03 Intermodal Transports  [2005] ECR I-8151, paragraph 47).
29. Heading 0207 refers to ‘meat and edible offal, of the poultry of heading 0105, fresh, chilled or frozen’. The application of that heading to salted meat is not provided for or precluded by either its wording or structure.
33. That argument cannot be upheld. It suffices to state that no provision of the CN applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings expressly provided that classification under heading 0210 depended on the question whether the salting was intended to ensure the long-term preservation of the meat in question. As regards the relevance of Dinter  and Gausepohl-Fleisch , it must be pointed out that those decisions were given in different circumstances from those of the case in the main proceedings, in so far as no legislative provision equivalent to additional note 7 to chapter 2 of Section I of Part Two of the CN had at that time been adopted for the purpose of clarifying the scope of the word ‘salted’ within the meaning of heading 0210 (see, by analogy, Case C-233/88 van de Kolk  [1990] ECR I-265, paragraphs 14 and 15).
Merck Genéricos - Produtos Farmacêuticos Ldª v Merck & Co. Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Ldª.
Date: 2007-09-11
31. The WTO Agreement, of which the TRIPs Agreement forms part, has been signed by the Community and subsequently approved by Decision 94/800. Therefore, according to settled case-law, the provisions of that convention now form an integral part of the Community legal order (see, inter alia, Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA  [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 36, and Case C-459/03 Commission  v Ireland  ECR I-4635, paragraph 82). Within the framework of that legal order the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of that agreement (see, inter alia, Case 181/73 Haegeman  v Belgium  [1974] ECR 449, paragraphs 4 to 6, and Case 12/86 Demirel  [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 7).
33. It follows that, the TRIPs Agreement having been concluded by the Community and its Member States by virtue of joint competence, the Court, hearing a case brought before it in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 234 EC, has jurisdiction to define the obligations which the Community has thereby assumed and, for that purpose, to interpret the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement (see, to that effect, Dior and Others , paragraph 33).
34. In addition, as the Court has previously held, when the field is one in which the Community has not yet legislated and which consequently falls within the competence of the Member States, the protection of intellectual property rights and measures taken for that purpose by the judicial authorities do not fall within the scope of Community law, so that the latter neither requires nor forbids the legal order of a Member State to accord to individuals the right to rely directly on a rule laid down in the TRIPs Agreement or to oblige the courts to apply that rule of their own motion ( Dior and Others , paragraph 48).
35. On the other hand, if it should be found that there are Community rules in the sphere in question, Community law will apply, which will mean that it is necessary, as far as may be possible, to supply an interpretation in keeping with the TRIPs Agreement (see, to that effect, Dior and Others , paragraph 47), although no direct effect may be given to the provision of that agreement at issue ( Dior and Others,  paragraph 44).
43. Lastly, with regard to Regulation No 1768/92, to which may be added Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30), it is to be borne in mind that the purpose of that certificate is to compensate for the long period which, for the products concerned, elapses between the filing of a patent application and the granting of authorisation to place the products on the market by providing, in certain circumstances, for a supplementary period of patent protection (see, so far as Regulation No 1768/92 is concerned, Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03 Novartis and Others [2005] ECR I-3209, paragraph 2).
Codirex Expeditie BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2007-09-13
16. To reply to that question it should be recalled, at the outset, that 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 tariff heading and in the notes to the sections or chapters (see to that effect, inter alia, Case C-175/82 Dinter  [1983] ECR 969, paragraph 10, Case C-233/88 Van de Kolk  [1990] ECR I-265, paragraph 12, and Case C-400/05 B.A.S. Trucks BV  [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 27).
21. A uniform interpretation of the various language versions as required by the case-law in the absence of coterminous texts (see, to that effect,  inter alia, Case C-48/98 Söhl & Söhlke  [1999] ECR I-7877, paragraph 46) must mean that the CN does not expressly require the frozen boned forequarter of the bovine animal to be presented at customs in a single piece, since some language versions of subheading 0202 30 50 do not even refer to the whole of the forequarter of the bovine animal.
22. Furthermore, the fact that the meat from the forequarter of the bovine animal is produced at customs in pieces does not affect its essential characteristics as indicated in subheading 0202 30 50, since the product content is the same as that described in the Additional Note relating to that subheading, even if it is produced in pieces. A variation in the presentation of a product, from the presentation mentioned in the CN which does not change the nature of the content of the product described does not result in its exclusion from the subheading concerned (see, to that effect, Case C-290/97 Bruner  [1998] ECR I-8333, paragraphs 25 to 27).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2007-09-20
18. It is clear from the case-law of the Court that Member States must comply with the obligations arising inter alia under that provision, even where the area in question has not been classified as an SPA, provided that it should have been so classified (Case C-166/97 Commission v France [1999] ECR I-1719, paragraph 38).
19. In that regard the Court has held that the inventory of IBAs, although not legally binding on the Member States concerned, contains scientific evidence making it possible to assess whether a Member State has complied with its obligation to classify as SPAs the most suitable territories in number and size for conservation of the protected species (see, inter alia, Case C-374/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-10799, paragraph 25).
24. So far as concerns areas classified as SPAs, Article 7 of the Habitats Directive provides that the obligations arising under Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive are replaced, inter alia, by the obligations arising under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive as from the date of implementation of the Habitats Directive or the date of classification under the Birds Directive, where the latter date is later (see Case C-117/00 Commission v Ireland [2002] ECR I-5335, paragraph 25).
26. Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, like the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive, requires Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid, in SPAs classified in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive, deterioration of habitats and disturbance significantly affecting the species for which the SPAs have been classified (see, to that effect, Commission v Ireland , paragraph 26).
Staat der Nederlanden v Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg and Others.
Date: 2007-09-20
31. The directive thus gives two definitions of medicinal products, one ‘by virtue of their presentation’ and one ‘by virtue of their function’. A product is a medicinal product if it falls within either of those definitions (Case C‑60/89 Monteil and Samanni  [1991] ECR I-1547, paragraphs 10 and 11). It is also settled case-law that those two definitions are to be broadly construed (see, to that effect, Case 35/85 Tissier  [1986] ECR 1207, paragraph 26; Monteil and Samanni , paragraph 23, and Case C‑112/89 Upjohn  [1991] ECR I-1703, paragraph 16).
35. Consequently, it is absolutely clear from the terms of that provision that, as the Court has already pointed out, if medicinal products are to be marketed in the Community, authorisation must first have been obtained, in accordance with the procedures laid down in the directive, for their placing on the market (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑211/03, C‑299/03 and C‑316/03 to C‑318/03 HLH Warenvertrieb and Orthica  [2005] ECR I-5141, paragraph 57).
36. Moreover, that interpretation of the provision in question is, as the Advocate General pointed out in points 56 to 60 of his Opinion, in accordance with the objectives which Directive 2001/83 seeks to attain, namely, the elimination of hindrances to trade in medicinal products between the Member States and the protection of public health.
40. However, as the Advocate General remarked in points 61 to 68 of his Opinion, the line of reasoning adopted by Antroposana and Others and the German Government is based on the erroneous premise that complete harmonisation in the field of medicinal products for human use is incompatible with the fact that that field is in a state of continuing evolution.
41. In reality, the fact that Directive 2001/83 lays down a complete system of authorisation procedures for medicinal products in no way means that the Community legislature cannot amend or adapt those procedures or, if necessary, introduce new ones so as better to attain the objectives of removing barriers to intracommunity trade and the protection of public health.