larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Criminal proceedings against Lars Sandström.
Date: 2010-04-15
28. Furthermore, Article 2(2) of Directive 94/25 states that its provisions do not prevent Member States from adopting, in compliance with the Treaty, provisions concerning navigation on certain waters for the purpose of protection of the environment, the fabric of waterways, and ensuring safety of waterways, providing that that does not require modification to craft conforming to that directive ( Mickelsson and Roos , paragraph 20).
29. Therefore, under Article 2(2) thereof, that directive does not preclude national provisions prohibiting the use of personal watercraft on certain waters for reasons connected with the protection of the environment, provided that they do not infringe the provisions of the Treaty ( Mickelsson and Roos , paragraph 21).
33. It is apparent from paragraph 44 of the judgment in Mickelsson and Roos  that Articles 28 EC and 30 EC do not preclude national regulations which, for reasons relating to the protection of the environment, prohibit the use of personal watercraft on waters other than designated waterways, provided that:
– the competent national authorities are required to adopt the implementing measures provided for in order to designate waters other than general navigable waterways on which personal watercraft may be used;
– those authorities have actually made use of the power conferred on them in that regard and designated the waters which satisfy the conditions laid down in the national regulations, and
– such measures have been adopted within a reasonable period after the entry into force of those regulations.
35. In that regard, it must be observed that, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court. However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see, to that effect, Mickelsson and Roos , paragraph 41).
42. In that connection, it is settled case-law that Directive 98/34 is designed to protect, by means of preventive monitoring, the free movement of goods, which is one of the foundations of the Community, and that this control serves a useful purpose in that technical regulations falling within the scope of that directive may constitute obstacles to trade in goods between Member States, such obstacles being permissible only if they are necessary to satisfy compelling requirements relating to a public interest (see Case C-194/94 CIA Security International [1996] ECR I‑2201, paragraph 40; Case C-226/97 Lemmens  [1998] ECR I-3711, paragraph 32; and Case C-303/04 Lidl Italia [2005] ECR I‑7865, paragraph 22).
E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden.
Date: 2010-04-15
22. That is the case, inter alia, where it is quite obvious that the ruling sought by a national court on the interpretation of a Union law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem submitted to the Court is hypothetical (see, to that effect, Case C-415/93 Bosman  [1995] ECR I‑4921, paragraph 61; Case C-466/04 Acereda Herrera  [2006] ECR I-5341, paragraph 48; and Case C-380/05 Centro Europa 7  [2008] ECR I-349, paragraph 53).
32. In this connection, it should first be observed that it is settled case-law that derogations from the rules of European Union law for the protection of consumers must be interpreted strictly (see, inter alia, Case C-481/99 Heininger  [2001] ECR I-9945, paragraph 31).
39. On the other hand, as the Court has already held, where he did not receive that information, that period of not less than seven days does not start to run, so that the consumer can exercise his right of renunciation under Article 5(1) of the Directive at any time (see, to that effect, Heininger , paragraph 45).
44. Nevertheless, as the Court has already specified, while there is no doubt that the aim of the Directive is to protect consumers, that does not imply that that protection is absolute. Thus, both the general structure of the Directive and the wording of several of its provisions indicate that such protection is subject to certain limits (see Case C‑412/06 Hamilton  [2008] ECR I-2383, paragraphs 39 and 40).
Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV.
Date: 2010-04-15
51. According to settled case-law, the need for a uniform interpretation of European Union directives makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered, in case of doubt, in isolation; on the contrary, it requires that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see, to that effect, Case C‑296/95 EMU Tabac and Others  [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 36; Case C‑321/96 Mecklenburg [1998] ECR I-3809, paragraph 29; Case C‑375/07 Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading  [2008] ECR I‑8691, paragraph 46; and Case C‑199/08 Eschig  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 54). In addition, where there is divergence between the various language versions of a European Union text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see Case C‑437/97 EKW and Wein & Co.  [2000] ECR I‑1157, paragraph 42; Case C‑457/05 Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie  [2007] ECR I‑8075, paragraph 18; and Case C‑239/07 Sabatauskas and Others  [2008] ECR I‑7523, paragraph 39).
54. As regards, second, the purpose of Article 6 of Directive 97/7, it should be made clear that recital 14 in the preamble to that directive states that the prohibition of imposing on consumers, where they withdraw from the contract, the costs incurred under that contract serves to ensure that the right of withdrawal guaranteed by that directive is ‘more than formal’ (see, in that regard, Case C‑489/07 Messner [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 19). Since Article 6 thus clearly has as its purpose not to discourage consumers from exercising their right of withdrawal, it would be contrary to that objective to interpret Article 6 as authorising the Member States to allow delivery costs to be charged to consumers in the event of such withdrawal.
59. In the light of all of the above considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 6(1), first subparagraph, second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the supplier under a distance contract to charge the costs of delivering the goods to the consumer where the latter exercises his right of withdrawal.
Costs
Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí and Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) v Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques (ADAGP) and Others.
Date: 2010-04-15
21. However, it is not for the Court, in the context of a reference for a pre liminary ruling, to give a ruling on the interpretation of provisions of national law, in particular those concerning private international law, or to decide whether the interpretation given by the national court of those provisions is correct. The Court must take account, under the division of jurisdiction between it and the national courts, of the factual and legislative context, as described in the order for reference, in which the questions put to it are set (see, to that effect, Case C‑244/06 Dynamic Medien [2008] ECR I‑505, paragraph 19 and the case‑law cited).
25. It should be recalled, at the outset, that according to the settled case‑law of the Court, in interpreting a provision of Community law it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the legislation of which it is part (see Case 292/82 Merck [1983] ECR 3781, paragraph 12; Case C‑223/98 Adidas [1999] ECR I‑7081, paragraph 23; Case C‑17/03 VEMW and Others [2005] ECR I‑4983, paragraph 41; and Case C‑199/08 Eschig [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 38).
27. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the adoption of Directive 2001/84 is based on two objectives, namely first, as is apparent from recitals 3 and 4 in the preamble to that directive, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their original works of art and, second, as recitals 9 and 10 in the preamble to the directive indicate, to put an end to the distortions of competition on the market in art, as the payment of a royalty in certain Member States might lead to displacement of sales of works of art into those Member States where the resale right is not applied.
31. That second objective explains the choice of the legal basis on which Directive 2001/84 was adopted, namely Article 95 EC. That choice confirms that the adoption of that directive forms part of the harmonisation of the Member States’ laws, regulations and administrative provisions which concern the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Therefore, as is apparent from recitals 13 and 15 in the preamble to that directive, there is no need to eliminate differences between national laws which cannot be expected to affect the functioning of the internal market and, in order to leave as much scope for national decision as possible, it is sufficient to limit the harmonisation exercise to those domestic provisions that have the most direct impact on the functioning of the internal market.
European Commission v French Republic.
Date: 2010-04-15
35. In the first place, recital 1 in the preamble to Directive 2000/53 states that the directive seeks to minimise the impact of end-of-life vehicles on the environment, but does not provide for complete harmonisation and thus does not prevent Member States from adopting more stringent protective measures (see, inter alia, Case C-6/03 Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe [2005] ECR I-2753, paragraph 27). Such measures must, however, be compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty and, inter alia, must not frustrate the achievement of the objective pursued in the second instance by that directive, namely to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortions of competition in the Union.
European Commission v Ireland.
Date: 2010-04-15
13. In this connection, 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 obtaining in the Member State 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-23/05 Commission  v Luxembourg  [2005] ECR I-9535, paragraph 9, and judgment of 17 December 2009 in Case C-120/09 Commission  v Belgium , paragraph 19).
17. Furthermore, it follows from case-law that, where a directive expressly provides that the measures transposing it are to contain a reference to it or are to be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication, it is in any event necessary to adopt a specific measure transposing the directive (see Case C-360/95 Commission  v Spain  [1997] ECR I-7337, paragraph 13; Case C‑361/95 Commission  v Spain  [1997] ECR I‑7351, paragraph 15; and judgment of 1 October 2009 in Case C‑502/08 Commission  v Spain , paragraph 21).
20. The finding of a failure to fulfil obligations of itself precludes granting Ireland’s application to suspend the proceedings pending a hypothetical withdrawal of the action by the Commission (Case C-366/00 Commission  v Luxembourg  [2002] ECR I-1749, paragraph 12, and judgment of 24 February 2005 in Case C-383/04 Commission  v Luxembourg , paragraph 7).
European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 2010-04-22
39. The fact that the concept of ‘product of combustion’ defines the extent of an exception to a general rule also militates against a broad interpretation of that concept. In accordance with settled case-law, exceptions are to be interpreted strictly so that general rules are not negated (see, to this effect, Case C-476/01 Kapper  [2004] ECR I‑5205, paragraph 72).
Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (C-536/08) and fiscale eenheid Facet BV / Facet Trading BV (C-539/08).
Date: 2010-04-22
28. In order to answer that question, it is necessary to recall, first of all, that the right to deduct VAT, as an integral part of the VAT scheme, is a fundamental principle underlying the common system of VAT and in principle may not be limited (see Case C-25/07 Sosnowska  [2008] ECR I‑5129, paragraph 15, and Case C-74/08 PARAT Automotive Cabrio  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 15).
29. The right of deduction must be exercised immediately in respect of all the taxes charged on input transactions. It follows that any limitation on the right of deduction of VAT affects the level of the tax burden and must be applied in a similar manner in all Member States (see PARAT Automotive Cabrio , paragraph 16).
30. Article 28b(A) of the Sixth Directive, which forms part of the transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States as laid down in Title XVIa of that directive, governs the place of intra-Community acquisitions of goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings. The purpose of those transitional arrangements is to transfer the tax revenue to the Member State in which final consumption of the goods supplied takes place (see Case C‑245/04 EMAG Handel Eder  [2006] ECR I‑3227, paragraph 40).
31. Article 28b(A)(1) sets out the general rule that the place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods is to be deemed to be the place where the goods are at the time when dispatch or transport to the person acquiring them ends.
35. It follows that Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive seeks, first, to ensure that the intra-Community acquisition in question is subject to tax and, secondly, to prevent double taxation in respect of the same acquisition.
37. In that regard, it is important to note, first, that Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (OJ 2003 L 264, p. 1) was not adopted for the purpose of establishing a system for exchanging information between the tax authorities of the Member States allowing them to establish whether intra-Community acquisitions have in fact been subject to VAT in the Member State of arrival of the dispatch or transport in cases where a taxable person is not himself able to provide the necessary evidence for that purpose (see, to that effect, Case C‑184/05 Twoh International  [2007] ECR I‑7897, paragraph 34).
Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis v Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon.
Date: 2010-04-22
14. It is settled case-law that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the national courts provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where questions submitted by national courts concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is bound, in principle, to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra  [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 38, and Case C-103/88 Gottwald  [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 16).
15. It follows that the presumption that questions referred by national courts for a preliminary ruling are relevant may be rebutted only in exceptional cases, in particular where it is quite obvious that the interpretation which is sought of the provisions of Community law referred to in the questions bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose ( Gottwald , paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
24. It is undisputed that Regulation No 2152/2003 was adopted on the basis of Article 175 EC which falls within Title XIX of the EC Treaty, devoted to Community policy on the environment. The Community rules in this area do not seek to effect complete harmonisation (Case C-6/03 Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe  [2005] ECR I-2753, paragraph 27). Even though Article 174 EC refers to certain Community objectives to be attained, Article 176 EC allows the Member States to introduce more stringent protective measures (Case C-318/98 Fornasar and Others  [2000] ECR I-4785, paragraph 46, and Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe , paragraph 27).
Enosi Efopliston Aktoploïas and Others v Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías and Ypourgos Aigaíou.
Date: 2010-04-22
10. In answering that question, the Court stated as follows in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the order in Case C‑285/05:
‘17 … [W]here the regulation concerned grants a Member State a specified period in which to comply with the obligations resulting from it, the regulation may not be relied on by individuals before the expiry of the period in question (see, to that effect, Case C‑156/91 Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt [1992] ECR I‑5567, paragraph 20).
18 In the case of Regulation No 3577/92, it is apparent from Article 6(2) and (3) that Greek island cabotage, as regards regular passenger and ferry services and services provided by vessels less than 650 gt, is exempted from the implementation of the regulation until 1 January 2004. The wording of that provision is such that derogations from the temporary exemption are not permitted. It follows that, in this particular cabotage sector, the regulation did not begin to have effects until 1 January 2004 and can therefore confer rights on individuals only from that date (see also, to that effect, [Case 43/71] Politi  [[1971] ECR 1039], paragraph 10).
19 That interpretation cannot be invalidated on the basis of the reasoning followed by the Court in Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie  [1997] ECR I-7411, paragraph 45, where it was held that, although the Member States were not obliged to adopt measures before the end of the period prescribed for transposition, it followed from the second paragraph of Article 10 EC in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and from Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) that during that period they had to refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive. Even if the temporary derogation laid down by Regulation No 3577/92 can be equated with the period for transposing a directive, it is not in any event apparent from the order for reference that it is alleged in the main proceedings that the Hellenic Republic took measures liable seriously to compromise the application of that regulation from 1 January 2004.’
Smit Reizen BV v Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat.
Date: 2010-04-29
21. In this connection, it must first of all be pointed out that the Court held, in paragraph 23 of the judgment in Skills Motor Coaches and Others , that a driver who goes to a specific place, other than the undertaking’s operating centre, indicated to him by his employer in order to take over and drive a vehicle is satisfying an obligation towards his employer and therefore he does not freely dispose of his time during that journey.
22. The Court thus held, in paragraph 35 of Skills Motor Coaches and Others , that the time necessarily spent travelling to take over a vehicle fitted with recording equipment, which is not at the driver’s home or the employer’s operating centre must be regarded as forming part of ‘all other periods of work’ within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation No 3821/85.
34. Secondly, it would be contrary to the objective of road safety to make a distinction such as that made by the referring court in its second question. The state of tiredness of the driver, as referred to in paragraph 25 of the judgment in Skills Motor Coaches and Others , which may endanger that objective, is likely to occur whether or not the driver of the vehicle travelling to the place where the vehicle fitted with recording equipment is to be taken over is the same as the person who, on arrival, will have to drive that latter vehicle. As the Italian Government pointed out, that state of tiredness may result not only from actually driving a vehicle, but also from the conditions in which the journey takes place, such as its duration, the time of departure or the state of the roads and, consequently, also affect the passenger as such.
Club Hotel Loutraki AE and Others v Ethnico Symvoulio Radiotileorasis and Ypourgos Epikrateias (C-145/08) and Aktor Anonymi Techniki Etaireia (Aktor ATE) v Ethnico Symvoulio Radiotileorasis (C-149/08).
Date: 2010-05-06
23. In its judgment in Case C‑213/07 Michaniki  [2008] ECR I‑9999, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the operative part, the Court held that, although European Union law does not preclude legislation which pursues the legitimate objectives of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, it does preclude, from the point of view of the principle of proportionality, the setting up of an irrebuttable presumption of incompatibility such as that laid down in the national legislation at issue.
The actions in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Case C‑145/08
48. It follows from the case-law of the Court that, in the case of a mixed contract, the different aspects of which are, in accordance with the contract notice, inseparably linked and thus form an indivisible whole, the transaction at issue must be examined as a whole for the purposes of its legal classification and must be assessed on the basis of the rules which govern the aspect which constitutes the main object or predominant feature of the contract (see, to that effect, Case C‑3/88 Commission  v Italy  [1989] ECR 4035, paragraph 19; Case C‑331/92 Gestión Hotelera Internacional  [1994] ECR I‑1329, paragraphs 23 to 26; Case C‑220/05 Auroux and Others  [2007] ECR I‑385, paragraphs 36 and 37; Case C‑412/04 Commission  v Italy  [2008] ECR I‑619, paragraph 47; and Case C‑536/07 Commission  v Germany  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraphs 28, 29, 57 and 61).
49. That conclusion is valid irrespective of whether or not the aspect constituting the main object of a mixed contract falls within the scope of the directives on public contracts.
73. In that regard, it is important to note that the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of European Union law (see, to that effect, Case C‑432/05 Unibet  [2007] ECR I‑2271, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
74. The Court has consistently held that, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from European Union law. Those detailed procedural rules must, however, be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by European Union law (principle of effectiveness) (see, to that effect, Case C‑268/06 Impact  [2008] ECR I‑2483, paragraphs 44 and 46 and the case-law cited).