larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Agenzia regionale per lo sviluppo rurale (ERSA) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali.
Date: 2005-05-12
75. According to the case-law of the Court, a Community act falls within the exclusive competence in the field of the common commercial policy provided for in Article 133 EC only if it relates specifically to international trade in that it is essentially intended to promote, facilitate or govern trade and has direct and immediate effects on trade in the products concerned (see Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I-5267, paragraph 57, Opinion 2/00 [2001] ECR I-9713, paragraph 40, and Case C-281/01 Commission  v Council  [2002] ECR I-12049, paragraphs 40 and 41).
119. According to settled case-law, the right to property is one of the general principles of Community law. However, it is not absolute but must be viewed in relation to its social function. Consequently, the exercise of the right to property may be restricted, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute in relation to the aim pursued a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-306/93 SMW Winzersekt  [1994] ECR I-5555, paragraph 22, and Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 Di Lenardo and Dilexport  [2004] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited).
Meta Fackler KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Date: 2005-05-12
16. Under Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83, read in conjunction with Article 1(5), a homeopathic medicinal product, that is to say a medicinal product prepared from products, substances or combinations called homeopathic stocks in accordance with a homeopathic manufacturing procedure described by the European Pharmacopoeia or, in absence thereof, by the pharmacopoeias currently used officially in the Member States, may be subject to the special simplified registration procedure only in so far as it is administered orally or externally, no specific therapeutic indication appears on the labelling of the medicinal product or in any information relating thereto and, finally, there is a sufficient degree of dilution to guarantee its safety.
25. Second, even if that omission was due, as the Bundesrepublik Deutschland argues, to an oversight by the legislature during the codification into a single text of the various directives concerning medicinal products for human use, the concept of traditional homeopathic medicinal products which are traditional, and therefore generally known, is not consistent, as is clear from the foregoing, with Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2001/83. The preamble to a Community act cannot be relied on as a ground for derogating from the actual provisions of the act in question (see Case C-162/97 Nilsson and Others  [1998] ECR I-7477, paragraph 54).
RAL (Channel Islands) Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs & Excise.
Date: 2005-05-12
23. Article 9 of the Sixth Directive contains rules f or determining the place where services are deemed to be supplied for tax purposes. Whereas Article 9(1) lays down a general rule on the matter, Article 9(2) sets out a number of specific instances of places where certain services are deemed to be supplied. The object of those provisions is to avoid, first, conflicts of jurisdiction which may result in double taxation, and, secondly, non-taxation (see Case 168/84 Berkholz  [1985] ECR 2251, paragraph 14, Case C-327/94 Dudda [1996] ECR I-4595, paragraph 20, and Case C-167/95 Linthorst, Pouwels en Scheres [1997] ECR I-1195, paragraph 10).
24. In respect of the relationship between the first two paragraphs of Article 9 of the Sixth Directive, the Court has already held that Article 9(1) in no way takes precedence over Article 9(2). 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) ( Dudda , cited above, paragraph 21, and Linthorst, Pouwels en Scheres , cited above, paragraph 11).
25. It must therefore be examined at the outset whether an activity such as the one to which the order for reference relates falls within the scope, as the Irish and Portuguese Governments claim, of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive, which determines the place where ‘entertainment or similar activities’ are deemed to be supplied for tax purposes. It should be recalled here that it is for the Court to provide the national court with all those elements for the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has specifically referred to them in its questions (see Case C-241/89 SARPP  [1990] ECR I-4695, paragraph 8, Case C-315/92 Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (‘Clinique’)  [1994] ECR I-317, paragraph 7, Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola  [1999] ECR I‑1301, paragraph 16, and Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, paragraph 38).
The interpretation of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Milupa GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 2005-05-12
21. Furthermore, Article 7 of Regulation No 1222/94 contains certain special provisions which are specific to the nature of the products covered by that regulation. Thus, the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the aforementioned regulation provides that when goods are to be exported, the party concerned must declare the quantities of basic products, of products derived from the processing thereof, or of products assimilated to one of those two categories in accordance with Article 1(2), which have actually been used, within the meaning of Article 3(2), in the manufacture of those goods, for which a refund will be requested, or otherwise refer to that composition if it has been determined in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 3(2).
26. As regards the assessment in the light of the principle of proportionality of that same sanction being applied to an exporter who, through no fault of his own, has requested a refund in excess of that applicable, the Court has already held that the sanction does not breach that principle, since it cannot be considered to be inappropriate for attaining the objective pursued by Community law, namely to combat irregularities and fraud, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective (Case C-210/00 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister  [2002] ECR I‑6453, paragraph 68).
Maatschap J. B. en R. A. M. Elshof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.
Date: 2005-05-12
23. Regulation No 1046/2001 makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining the meaning and scope of the term ‘batch’. It is an independent concept of Community law, the interpretation of which must take into account the context of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1046/2001 and the purpose of that regulation (see, to that effect, Cases 327/82 Ekro [1984] ECR 107, paragraph 11; C-287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I‑6917, paragraph 43, and C-373/00 Adolf Truley  [2003] ECR I‑1931, paragraph 35).
French Republic v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.
Date: 2005-05-24
12. It must be borne in mind in this regard that, as follows from settled case-law, partial annulment of a Community act is possible only if the elements the annulment of which is sought may be severed from the remainder of the act (see, inter alia, Case C-29/99 Commission  v Council  [2002] ECR I-11221, paragraphs 45 and 46; Case C-378/00 Commission  v Parliament and Council  [2003] ECR I‑937, paragraph 30; and Case C-239/01 Germany  v Commission  [2003] ECR I‑10333, paragraph 33).
13. Likewise, the Court has repeatedly ruled that that requirement of severability is not satisfied in the case where the partial annulment of an act would have the effect of altering its substance (Joined Cases C‑68/94 and C-30/95 France and Others  v Commission  [1998] ECR I‑1375, paragraph 257; Commission  v Council , cited above, paragraph 46; and Germany  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 34).
14. Admittedly, as the French Government points out, the Court has ruled, in regard to an implementing regulation adopted by the Commission, that the question whether partial annulment may alter the substance of the contested act is an objective criterion, and not a subjective criterion linked to the political intention of the authority which adopted the act at issue ( Germany  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 37).
21. As the applicant has not requested, even by way of alternative submission, the annulment of Article 1(1), and as it, moreover, stressed in its reply and pointed out at the hearing that such a request by it would have been meaningless and that it was not seeking annulment of that provision, it must necessarily be held that the action is inadmissible (see the above judgments in Commission  v Council , paragraphs 45 to 51, Commission v Parliament and Council , paragraphs 29 and 30, and Germany  v Commission , paragraphs 33 to 38).
Costs
Ministero della Salute v Coordinamento delle associazioni per la difesa dell'ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons) and Federconsumatori.
Date: 2005-05-26
53. It follows from Article 7(1) and (4) of Directive 89/398, interpreted in keeping with the fourth recital in the preamble thereto, that labelling requirements such as those laid down by Regulation No 1139/98 apply in principle to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses within the scope of the directive, namely those which are intended to meet a particular nutritional purpose in respect of certain categories of persons, unless it is necessary to provide for a derogation from those requirements in order to ensure that the particular nutritional purpose in question is attained (see, to that effect, Case C‑101/98 UDL  [1999] ECR I-8841, paragraphs 15 and 18).
57. As is clear from its fourth and sixth recitals, Regulation No 1139/98 has a dual purpose: first, to remove potential obstacles to the free movement of products containing genetically modified soya and maize, and, second, to provide the final consumer with information (see, to that effect, Case C‑316/01 Glawischnig [2003] ECR I‑5995, paragraphs 30 and 31).
58. Regulation No 1139/98 is intended to add further information to that which it is already compulsory to mention on the labelling of certain foodstuffs under Directive 79/112, which was not designed as a measure for protection of the environment (see Glawischnig , paragraph 33).
61. According to settled case-law, the precautionary principle presupposes that there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health (see, to that effect, Case C‑236/01 Monsanto Agricoltura Italia and Others  [2003] ECR I‑8105, paragraph 111, and the case-law cited).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2005-05-26
16. That latter circumstance, however, is not such as to remove the restrictive nature of the administrative practice in question for the purpose of Article 28 EC. Rather than the absolute or relative number of authorisations granted, it is the very fact that they are required which is decisive.
43. Although grounds of health protection may justify restrictions on the free movement of goods between Member States, such measures must comply with the principle of proportionality. They must be confined to what is actually necessary to ensure the safeguarding of public health; they must be proportionate to the objective pursued, which could not have been attained by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade (see Case C-192/01 Commission v Denmark [2003] ECR I-9693, paragraph 45).
António Jorge Ldª v Fazenda Pública.
Date: 2005-05-26
15. In view of the way in which the questions are worded, it is first of all to be pointed out that, although the Court has no jurisdiction under Article 234 EC to apply a rule of Community law to a particular case and thus to judge a provision of national law by reference to such a rule it may, in the framework of the judicial cooperation provided for by that article, and on the basis of the material presented to it, provide a national court with an interpretation of Community law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of that provision (Case 204/87 Bekaert  [1988] ECR 2029, paragraph 5).
16. However, if questions have been improperly formulated or go beyond the scope of the powers conferred on it by Article 234 EC, the Court is free to extract from all the factors provided by the national court, and in particular from the statement of the grounds contained in the reference, the elements of Community law requiring an interpretation – or, as the case may be, an assessment of validity – having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute (see Case C-105/96 Codiesel  [1997] ECR I‑3465, paragraph 13).
21. It is to be noted, to begin with, that the deduction system is intended to relieve the trader entirely of the burden of the VAT payable or paid in the course of all his economic activities.  The common system of VAT consequently ensures complete neutrality of taxation of all economic activities, whatever their purpose or results, provided that they are themselves subject in principle to VAT (Case C-98/98 Midland Bank  [2000] ECR I-4177, paragraph 19, and Case C-408/98 Abbey National  [2001] ECR I-1361, paragraph 24).
24. Article 17(1) of the Sixth Directive provides that the right to deduct arises at the time when the deductible tax becomes chargeable.  Article 10(2) of that directive provides that such is the case as soon as the goods are delivered or the services performed (Case C-400/98 Breitsohl  [2000] ECR I-4321, paragraph 36).  It must be borne in mind that under Article 10(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive the tax is chargeable ‘when the tax authority becomes entitled under the law at a given moment to claim the tax from the person liable to pay’.
25. It follows that, in the system of the Sixth Directive, the event giving rise to the tax, its chargeability and the possibility of deduction are linked to the actual performance of the delivery of goods or of the provision of services, except in the case of payments on account, where the tax becomes chargeable on receipt of payment.  There is in Article 19(1) nothing to exclude application of that general rule to the calculation of the deductible proportion and nothing in the wording of that provision to suggest that the system contains a derogation as regards the taking into account, in the denominator of the fraction making it possible to calculate the proportion, of transactions not yet completed other than those giving rise to payments on account or statements of account of works.
Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern.
Date: 2005-05-26
20. It follows from that judgment that operations other than the supply of agricultural products and agricultural services within the meaning of Article 25(2) of the Sixth Directive provided by the flat-rate farmer within the framework of agricultural undertakings remain subject to the general scheme under the Sixth Directive (see, to that effect, Harbs , paragraphs 31 and 36).
24. It should be observed that, in determining the scope of a provision of Community law, its wording, context and objectives must all be taken into account (Case C‑162/91 Tenuta il Bosco  [1992] ECR I‑5279, paragraph 11, and Harbs , paragraph 28). Moreover, it follows from the need for uniform application of Community law and the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see, inter alia, the judgment of 17 March 2005 in Case 327/82 Ekro [1984] ECR 107, paragraph 11, and Case C-170/03 Feron [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 26).
27. Turning next to the context in which those provisions are situated, the Court notes that they relate to a special scheme which is an exception to the general scheme under the Sixth Directive. It is settled case-law that any derogation from or exception to a general rule must be interpreted strictly (see, inter alia, Case C-399/93 Oude Luttikhuis and Others  [1995] ECR I-4515, paragraph 23, and Case C-5/01 Belgium  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-11991, paragraph 56). Like the other special schemes provided for in the Sixth Directive, the scheme under Article 25 must therefore be applied only to the extent necessary to achieve its objective (see Harbs , paragraph 27).
28. Lastly, as regards examination of the objectives pursued by the common flat-rate scheme, it should be borne in mind that this responds to a need for simplification. As evidenced by paragraph 29 of Harbs , that scheme aims to offset the tax charged on purchases of goods and services made by farmers by way of a flat-rate compensation payment to farmers who carry on their activity in an agricultural, forestry or fisheries undertaking when they supply agricultural products or agricultural services.
29. Application of the common flat-rate scheme is not dependent on satisfaction of a sole criterion, namely the formal status of farmer, but is also contingent on the nature of the economic transactions effected by him (see, to that effect, Harbs , paragraph 31). It would, moreover, be contrary to the nature and purpose of that scheme to interpret the concept of ‘agricultural service’ in the fifth indent of Article 25(2) of the Sixth Directive as covering a licensing operation, such as the grant of hunting licences, which is not intended for agricultural purposes and which does not relate to equipment normally used in agricultural, forestry or fisheries undertakings.
José Allard v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (INASTI).
Date: 2005-05-26
21. Furthermore, Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 specifies that the person referred to in Article 14a(2) of that regulation is to be treated as if he pursued all his professional activity or activities in the territory of the Member State concerned (see, by analogy, Case C‑71/93 Van Pouke  [1994] ECR I‑1101, paragraph 24).
28. It should first be recalled that the Court has already ruled, first, that, in regard to social security, the purpose of the principle of application of the legislation of a single Member State is to avoid the complications which might ensue from the simultaneous application of a number of national legislative systems and, second, that the attachment of a worker to the legislation of the State where he resides, in a case where he pursues one or more self-employed activities in two or more Member States, is by no means unreasonable (see order in Vogler , paragraphs 26 and 27).
30. Finally, according to settled case‑law, in principle, the only measures prohibited by the Treaty as being restrictions on freedom of establishment are national measures liable to hamper or to render less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (see, to that effect, Case C-19/92 Kraus  [1993] ECR I‑1663, paragraph 32, and Case C-55/94 Gebhard  [1995] ECR I‑4165, paragraph 37).
31. It is established that, in making self‑employed persons who pursue a professional activity in that capacity in more than one Member State subject, in respect of the whole of their income, to a single system of social legislation, Regulation No 1408/71 pursues a general objective, which is to ensure free movement of employed and self-employed persons within the Community, while respecting the special character of the various national laws, and seeks to guarantee the equality of treatment of all workers occupied in the territory of a Member State as effectively as possible and not to penalise workers who exercise their right to freedom of movement (see, to that effect, Case C‑68/99 Commission  v Germany  [2001] ECR I‑1865, paragraphs 22 and 23).
Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and Others v GlaxoSmithKline plc and GlaxoSmithKline AEVE.
Date: 2005-05-31
29. 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 234 EC, which is a question governed by Community 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, in particular, Case C‑54/96 Dorsch Consult  [1997] ECR I-4961, paragraph 23, Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 Gabalfrisa and Others  [2000] ECR I-1577, paragraph 33, Case C-195/98 Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund  [2000] ECR I‑10497, paragraph 24, and Case C-516/99 Schmid  [2002] ECR I-4573, paragraph 34). Moreover, a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (see, in particular, Case C‑134/97 Victoria Film  [1998] ECR I-7023, paragraph 14, and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund , paragraph 25).
31. Next, whilst it is true that the members of the Epitropi Antagonismou enjoy personal and operational independence and are bound in the exercise of their duties only by the law and their conscience within the meaning of Law No 703/1977, it nevertheless remains that there are no particular safeguards in respect of their dismissal or the termination of their appointment. That system does not appear to constitute an effective safeguard against undue intervention or pressure from the executive on the members of the Epitropi Antagonismou (see, to that effect, Case C-103/97 Köllensperger and Atzwanger  [1999] ECR I-551, paragraph 21).
33. It should be noted in this regard that the Tribunales Económico-Administrativos (Economic and Administrative Courts) (Spain) were found by the Court, in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Gabalfrisa  judgment, to be third parties in relation to the departments of the tax authority responsible for the management, clearance and recovery of VAT, particularly given the separation of functions between them. However, in so far as there is an operational link between the Epitropi Antagonismou, a decision-making body, and its secretariat, a fact-finding body on the basis of whose proposal it adopts decisions, the Epitropi Antagonismou is not a clearly distinct third party in relation to the State body which, by virtue of its role, may be akin to a party in the course of competition proceedings.
35. A body may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (see Victoria Film , paragraph 14, and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund , paragraph 25).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2005-06-02
19. For certain types of project, Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 gives the Member States a discretion to decide whether the characteristics of a project require that it be made subject to an assessment of its effects on the environment. However, the limits of that discretion are to be found in the obligation on those States, set out in Article 2(1) of that directive, that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are to be subject to such an assessment (see, to that effect, Case C‑72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others  [1996] ECR I-5403, paragraph 50).
20. Where, in the exercise of the power laid down in the second paragraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337, a Member State defines general rules for determining whether projects falling within Article 4(2) must be made subject to prior assessment of their effects on the environment before consent is given, the infringement of those rules necessarily constitutes an infringement of the combined provisions of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337.