ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑48/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Environment – Directive 2008/1/EC – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations – Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of the directive

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paras 30-35)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 31)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Commission’s right to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 32)

4. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil – Justification on basis of a possible failure to fulfil its obligations by another Member State – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 33)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) – Installations that may have an effect on emissions into the air, water or soil and on pollution – Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the directive not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific European Union legislation, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;
1.

Declares that, for the years 2005 to 2007, by exceeding the limit values for annual and daily concentrations of PM10 in ambient air, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C-265/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Chemicals – Registration, evaluation, authorisation of those substances and restrictions applicable to them – REACH Regulation – Article 126 – System of penalties in the event of infringement of the provisions of the REACH Regulation – Lack of implementation within the period prescribed

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 27)

2. Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals – REACH Regulation – Implementation by Member States – Penalties in the event of failure to comply with the regulation – Federal Member State not obliged to conclude a cooperation agreement with the regions in order to give effect to the regulation (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 126) (see para. 37)

Re

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p.1) – Penalties applicable for infringement of the REACH Regulation.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the penalties applicable to infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 126 of that regulation;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑90/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – ‘Habitats’ directive – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora – Articles 4(4) and 6(1) and (2) – Establishment of priorities for special areas of conservation and of adequate protection thereof – Failure to ensure adequate legal protection of the special areas of conservation in the Canary Islands

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 25)

2. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Special areas of conservation – Obligations of the Member States – Establishing of priorities – Failure to accomplish that by means of an order approving the corresponding management instruments – Failure to adopt the measures necessary in order to prevent the deterioration of natural habitats and the significant disturbance of species – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(4) and 6(1) and (2)) (see paras 37-38, 48-49, 53-54, 62-64, operative part)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible (Art. 226 CE) (see para. 47)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Sites of Community importance – Conservation measures – Macaronesian biogeographical region.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by failing to establish, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, conservation priorities in relation to the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region within Spanish territory and identified by Commission Decision 2002/11/EC of 28 December 2001 adopting the list of sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43, and

– by failing to adopt and apply, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43, the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance of species, by ensuring the legal protection of the special areas of conservation covering the sites referred to in Decision 2002/11 situated in Spanish territory,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;
5

Article 3, which defines the directive’s scope, states: ‘1. An environmental assessment, in accordance with Articles 4 to 9, shall be carried out for plans and programmes referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4 which are likely to have significant environmental effects. 2. Subject to paragraph 3, an environmental assessment shall be carried out for all plans and programmes, (a) which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 85/337/EEC, or (b) which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC. 3. Plans and programmes referred to in paragraph 2 which determine the use of small areas at local level and minor modifications to plans and programmes referred to in paragraph 2 shall require an environmental assessment only where the Member States determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects. 4. Member States shall determine whether plans and programmes, other than those referred to in paragraph 2, which set the framework for future development consent of projects, are likely to have significant environmental effects. 5. Member States shall determine whether plans or programmes referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 are likely to have significant environmental effects either through case-by-case examination or by specifying types of plans and programmes or by combining both approaches. For this purpose Member States shall in all cases take into account relevant criteria set out in Annex II, in order to ensure that plans and programmes with likely significant effects on the environment are covered by this Directive. ...’
7

The provisions of the Framework Agreement on part-time work relevant to the case in the main proceedings are as follows: ‘Clause 1: Purpose: The purpose of this Framework Agreement is: (a) to provide for the removal of discrimination against part-time workers and to improve the quality of part-time work; (b) to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis and to contribute to the flexible organisation of working time in a manner which takes into account the needs of employers and workers. Clause 2: Scope 1. This Agreement applies to part-time workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreement or practice in force in each Member State. 2. Member States, after consultation with the social partners in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice, and/or the social partners at the appropriate level in conformity with national industrial relations practice may, for objective reasons, exclude wholly or partly from the terms of this Agreement part-time workers who work on a casual basis. Such exclusions should be reviewed periodically to establish if the objective reasons for making them remain valid. Clause 3: Definitions For the purpose of this agreement: 1. The term “part-time worker” refers to an employee whose normal hours of work, calculated on a weekly basis or on average over a period of employment of up to one year, are less than the normal hours of work of a comparable full-time worker. 2. The term “comparable full-time worker” means a full-time worker in the same establishment having the same type of employment contract or relationship, who is engaged in the same or a similar work/occupation, due regard being given to other considerations which may include seniority and qualification/skills. … Clause 4: Principle of non-discrimination 1. In respect of employment conditions, part-time workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers solely because they work part time unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. 2. Where appropriate, the principle of pro rata temporis shall apply. 3. The arrangements for the application of this clause shall be defined by the Member States and/or social partners, having regard to European legislation, national law, collective agreements and practice. 4. Where justified by objective reasons, Member States after consultation of the social partners in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice and/or social partners may, where appropriate, make access to particular conditions of employment subject to a period of service, time worked or earnings qualification. Qualifications relating to access by part-time workers to particular conditions of employment should be reviewed periodically having regard to the principle of non-discrimination as expressed in Clause 4.1.’
4

According to Article 10(2) and (3) of the Sixth Directive: ‘2. The chargeable event shall occur and the tax shall become chargeable when the goods are delivered or the services are performed. … By way of derogation from the above provisions, Member States may provide that the tax shall become chargeable, for certain transactions or for certain categories of taxable person, either: — no later than the issue of the invoice or of the document serving as invoice, or — no later than receipt of the price, or — where an invoice or document serving as invoice is not issued, or is issued late, within a specified period from the date of the chargeable event. 3. The chargeable event shall occur and the tax shall become chargeable when the goods are imported. Where goods are placed under one of the arrangements referred to in Article 7(3) on entry into the Community, the chargeable event shall occur and the tax shall become chargeable only when the goods cease to be covered by those arrangements. However, where imported goods are subject to customs duties, to agricultural levies or to charges having equivalent effect established under a common policy, the chargeable event shall occur and the tax shall become chargeable when the chargeable event for those Community duties occurs and those duties become chargeable. Where imported goods are not subject to any of those Community duties, Member States shall apply the provisions in force governing customs duties as regards the occurrence of the chargeable event and the moment when the tax becomes chargeable.’
28

In those circumstances the Sąd Apelacyjny – Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does the principle of freedom of movement and residence in the Member States of the European Union, as expressed in Articles 21 TFEU and 20(2) TFEU, mean that Article 10 of … Regulation … No 1408/71 … must be interpreted as meaning that old-age cash benefits acquired under the legislation of one Member State are not to be subject to any reduction, modification, suspension, withdrawal or confiscation by reason of the fact that the recipient lived simultaneously (had two habitual residences of equal status) in the territory of two Member States, including one other than that in which the institution responsible for payment of the retirement pension is situated? (2) Must Articles 21 TFEU and 20(2) TFEU and Article 10 of … Regulation … No 1408/71 … be interpreted as precluding the application of national provision Article 114(1) of the [Law on retirement pensions], in conjunction with Article 4 of the Convention of 9 October 1975 …, which entails re-examination of the case by the Polish pension institution and removal of the pension right of a person who, for many years, has had simultaneously two habitual residences (two centres of interests) in two countries now belonging to the European Union and who did not, prior to 2009, submit an application or declaration concerning the transfer of residence to one of those countries? In the event that the answer is in the negative: (3) Must Articles 20(2) TFEU and 21 TFEU and Article 10 of … Regulation No 1408/71 … be interpreted as precluding the application of national provision Article 138(1) and (2) of [the Law on retirement pensions], which entails the demanding by the Polish pension institution of repayment of a retirement pension in respect of the period of the last three years from a person who, from 1975 to 2009, had simultaneously two habitual residences (two centres of interests) in two countries now belonging to the European Union, where that person had not, at the time the application for the grant of a retirement pension was examined and after the pension was received, been advised by the Polish insurance institution of the need to inform it that he has two habitual residences in two countries and of the need to submit an application or declaration concerning the choice of an insurance institution in one of those countries as competent for the purpose of considering applications concerning retirement pensions?’
Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, must be interpreted as not permitting an intermediary dealer arranging a shipment of waste not to disclose the name of the waste producer to the consignee of the shipment, as provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006 in conjunction with Annex VII to that regulation, even though such non-disclosure might be necessary in order to protect the business secrets of that intermediary dealer.

Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, must be interpreted as requiring an intermediary dealer, in the context of a shipment of waste covered by that provision, to complete Field 6 of the document contained in Annex VII to that regulation, in which he must state the name of the waste producer, and transmit it to the consignee, without any possibility of the scope of that requirement’s being restricted by a right to protection of business secrets.

In that regard, even if the obligation to disclose the name of the waste producer to the consignee of a shipment of waste were to constitute a breach of the protection of the business secrets of intermediary dealers, that could not have the consequence of restricting the scope of a provision of secondary law that is clear and unconditional.

(see paras 34, 44, 47, operative part 2)
As regards marks made up of signs or indications that are also used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase the goods or services covered by those marks, registration of such marks is not excluded as such by virtue of such use. In order to assess the distinctive character of such marks, it is inappropriate to apply to slogans criteria which are stricter than those applicable to other types of sign.

However, according to the case-law of the Court, whilst the criteria for assessing distinctiveness are the same for the various categories of trade mark, it may become apparent, when applying those criteria, that the relevant public’s perception is not necessarily the same in relation to each of those categories and that, therefore, it may prove more difficult to establish the distinctiveness of the marks in certain categories than of those in other categories.

While the Court has not excluded the possibility that that case-law may, in certain circumstances, be relevant to word marks consisting of advertising slogans, it has however stated that difficulties in establishing distinctiveness which may be associated with such marks because of their very nature – difficulties which it is legitimate to take into account – do not justify laying down specific criteria supplementing or derogating from the criterion of distinctiveness as interpreted in the case-law.

(see paras 25-27)
Note 1(g) of Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1789/2003, read in conjunction with Note 1(b) of Chapter 35 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a blood albumin which does not itself have a therapeutic or prophylactic effect, but which was produced for the preparation of products having a prophylactic or therapeutic effect, which is essential to that preparation, and which, by its nature, may only be used for that purpose, was prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic use within the meaning of that note.

Accordingly, the fact that blood albumin cannot be used directly for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes does not prevent it, when it goes through customs, from being regarded on the basis of its objective characteristics and properties as being prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic use.

(see paras 39, 47, operative part)
Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of defining the term ‘pharmacological action’ within the meaning of that provision, account may be taken of the definition of that term in the Guidance Document on the demarcation between Directive 76/768 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products and Directive 2001/83 as agreed between the Commission services and the competent authorities of the Member States.

It is true that, in itself, that guidance document, which is not one of the legal acts of the European Union referred to in Article 288 TFEU, cannot be of a legally binding nature or enforceable against individuals. However, it may provide useful information for the interpretation of the relevant provisions of European Union law and therefore contribute to ensuring that they are applied uniformly. Consequently, a national court may, in order to apply the term ‘pharmacological action’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83, take account of that document. In doing so, it must nevertheless ensure that the interpretation thus derived was derived in a manner consistent with the criteria laid down by the case-law relating to the interpretation of European Union legal acts, including those concerning the division of jurisdiction between the national courts and the Court in the context of preliminary ruling proceedings.

(see paras 23, 25-27, operative part 1)