The concept of abuse in tax matters within European Union law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principle of prohibition of abuse of rights is applicable in fields as varied as the free movement of goods (judgment of 10 of January 1985, Association des Centres distributeurs Leclerc and Thouars Distribution, Case 229/83), freedom to provide services (judgment of 3 of February 1993, Veronica Omroep Organisatie, Case C‑148/91), public service contracts (judgment of 11 of December 2014, Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 Spezzino and Others, Case C‑113/13), freedom of establishment (judgment of 9 of March 1999, Centros, Case C‑212/97), company law (judgment of 23 of March 2000, Diamantis, Case C‑373/97), social security (judgments of 2 of May 1996, Paletta, Case C‑206/94; of 6 of February 2018, Altun and Others, Case C‑359/16; and of 11 of July 2018, Commission v Belgium, Case C‑356/15), transport (judgment of 6 of April 2006, Agip Petroli, Case C‑456/04), social policy (judgment of 28 of July 2016, Kratzer, Case C‑423/15), restrictive measures (judgment of 21 of December 2011, Afrasiabi and Others, Case C‑72/11) and value added tax (judgment of 21 of February 2006, Halifax and Others, Case C‑255/02) and, in that sense, the EU principle of prohibition of abuse of law has been developing within the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union since the mid-1970s, addressing it in multiple ways, not only in the face of different factual assumptions, which would be understandable and even necessary but, in its evolution, treating asymmetrically the handling of the requirements that must be met to reach the conclusion of the existence of practices abusive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".