ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The Commission, acting in cooperation with the customs experts of the Member States, has 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 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, such as supplementary notes, does not authorise it to alter the subject-matter of the tariff headings which have been defined on the basis of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council, now the World Customs Organisation and established by the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, or to amend customs duty rates.

In order to ascertain whether, by altering a tariff heading, the Commission exceeded its discretion, it is necessary to examine the classification of the products at issue at the date of the entry into force of the alternation to the heading. In that regard, it must be held that the Commission did not, therefore, exceed the powers conferred on it by Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87 when, by Regulation No 1031/2008 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, it classified the multifunctional printers under sub-heading 8443 31 91 of the Combined Nomenclature and made them subject to customs duties of 6%. Those multifunctional printers, comprising a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function, were classified, before the entry into force of Regulation No 1031/2008, under sub-heading 9009 12 00 of the Combined Nomenclature and were subject to the same customs duties.

(see paras 39, 40, 49, 50)
The Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 258 TFEU for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

In that respect, as follows in particular from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the application initiating proceedings must state the subject-matter of the dispute and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based and that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the form of order sought to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on a claim.

As regards an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the absence of an indispensable element from the content of the application initiating proceedings, such as the period during which the Member State, according to the Commission’s assertions, has infringed EU law, does not satisfy the requirements of coherence, clarity and precision. In such a case, the Commission cannot merely allege that there is a current breach of obligations and that the Court’s decision must apply to the present and not the past, without specifying the period referred to.

(see paras 49-54)
Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while not providing in mortgage enforcement proceedings for grounds of objection based on the unfairness of a contractual term on which the right to seek enforcement is based, does not permit the court before which declaratory proceedings have been brought, which does have jurisdiction to assess the unfairness of such a term, to grant interim relief, including, in particular, the staying of those enforcement proceedings, where the grant of such relief is necessary to guarantee the full effectiveness of its final decision.

Without that possibility, in all cases in which enforcement in respect of the mortgaged immovable property took place before the judgment of the court in the declaratory proceedings declaring unfair the contractual term on which the mortgage is based and annulling the enforcement proceedings, that judgment would enable that consumer to obtain only subsequent protection of a purely compensatory nature, which would be incomplete and insufficient and would not constitute either an adequate or effective means of preventing the continued use of that term, contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13. That applies all the more strongly where the mortgaged property is the family home of the consumer whose rights have been infringed, since that means of consumer protection is limited to payment of damages and interest and does not make it possible to prevent the definitive and irreversible loss of that dwelling. Thus, such procedural rules impair the effectiveness of the protection sought by the directive.

(see paras 59-61, 64, operative part 1)
That requirement pertains, in environmental matters, to the observance of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and to the principle of effectiveness, in accordance with which detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under European Union law must not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by European Union law.

The requirement, under the fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and the fifth paragraph of Article 15a of Directive 96/61 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Directive 2003/35, that judicial proceedings should not be prohibitively expensive means that the persons covered by those provisions should not be prevented from seeking, or pursuing a claim for, a review by the courts that falls within the scope of those articles by reason of the financial burden that might arise as a result, taking into account all the costs borne by the party concerned.

Where a national court is called upon to make an order for costs against a member of the public who is an unsuccessful claimant in an environmental dispute or, more generally, where it is required to state its views, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, on a possible capping of the costs for which the unsuccessful party may be liable, it must satisfy itself that the requirement that the proceedings should not be prohibitively expensive has been complied with, taking into account both the interest of the person wishing to defend his rights and the public interest in the protection of the environment.

In the context of that assessment, the national court cannot act solely on the basis of that claimant’s financial situation but must also carry out an objective analysis of the amount of the costs. Thus, the cost of proceedings must neither exceed the financial resources of the person concerned nor appear, in any event, to be objectively unreasonable. It may also take into account the situation of the parties concerned, whether the claimant has a reasonable prospect of success, the importance of what is at stake for the claimant and for the protection of the environment, the complexity of the relevant law and procedure, the potentially frivolous nature of the claim at its various stages, and the existence of a national legal aid scheme or a costs protection regime.

By contrast, the fact that a claimant has not been deterred, in practice, from asserting his claim is not of itself sufficient to establish that the proceedings are not prohibitively expensive for him.

Lastly, that assessment cannot be conducted according to different criteria depending on whether it is carried out at the conclusion of first-instance proceedings, an appeal or a second appeal.

(see paras 40-48, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aid and premiums — Obligation for Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections — Scope

(Council Regulation No 4045/89, Art. 2)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aid and premiums — Obligation for Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections — Period under scrutiny — Meaning — Possibility for a Member State to extend the period under scrutiny and adjust the temporal parameters — Included — Irregularity of procedure — None

(Council Regulation No 4045/89, Art. 2(4) second para. and Art. 4)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 16-20)

2. The second subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Regulation No 4045/89 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State makes use of the option of extending the period under scrutiny, that period need not necessarily end during the preceding scrutiny period; rather, it may also end after that period has elapsed. That provision must nonetheless also be interpreted as not conferring upon operators a right which would enable them to oppose inspections other or broader than those envisaged under that provision. It follows that the fact that an inspection relates only to a period ending before the preceding scrutiny period begins cannot, of itself, make that inspection unlawful with regard to the operators scrutinised.

Accordingly, Article 2(4) of Regulation No 4045/89 cannot be construed as conferring upon the operators concerned a right enabling them to oppose checks other or broader than those envisaged by that provision. Moreover, in so far as it might have the effect of preventing the recovery of aid which has been unlawfully collected or used, such a right would imperil the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. In any event, the checks required under Regulation No 4045/89 concern operators who voluntarily signed up for the support scheme established by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF and who, in order to receive aid, accepted the performance of inspections to verify that the European Union’s resources had been used properly. Those operators cannot validly call into question the lawfulness of such scrutiny simply because it was not in conformity with the organisational rules concerning the relations between the Member States and the Commission.

The obligation for the recipient of aid granted under the support scheme established by the EAGGF to submit, during an inspection relating to specific periods, the requisite documents in order to establish the validity and the lawfulness of the subsidies which have been paid — where, legally, the period for which those documents are to be kept, set at a minimum of three years by Article 4 of Regulation No 4045/89, has not yet elapsed — cannot therefore be regarded as undermining legal certainty.

(see paras 29, 30, 32, 33, operative part)
A Member State that fails to ensure the independence of the infrastructure manager with regard to the setting of charges for access to the infrastructure and the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure.

Article 4(1) of that directive provides that the Member States are to establish a charging framework and may also establish specific charging rules, while respecting the management independence of the infrastructure manager. Under that provision, it is the latter’s responsibility, first, to determine the charge for use of the infrastructure and, second, to collect that charge.

In that regard, charging and capacity-allocation schemes should encourage railway infrastructure managers to optimise use of their infrastructure within the framework established by the Member States. Those managers could not achieve such optimal use by means of the charging system if their role were confined to calculating the amount of the charge in each individual case, applying a formula established in advance by ministerial order. Infrastructure mangers must therefore be given a degree of flexibility in setting the amount of charges.

(see paras 41, 43, 70, operative part 1)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60) (see paras 16, 29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Infringement of Articles 13(1), (2) and (6), 14(1)(c) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — River basin district management plans — Publication — Information and consultation of the public — Commission not notified of copy management plans.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rules that, the Portuguese Republic, by failing within the prescribed period:

– to publish the national and international river basin district management plans;

– to publish and to submit to the public, including users, for comment the envisaged river basin district management plans, and

– to send the European Commission the copies of those plans,

has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 13(6) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Commission v Ryanair

(Case C-615/11 P)

‛Appeal — Action for failure to act — Article 232 EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 20(2) — State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines — Complaint — Lack of a decision from the Commission’

1. Actions for failure to act — Commission under an obligation to act — Obligation to examine information relating to alleged unlawful aid — Obligation either to inform the interested party in the event of insufficient grounds or to adopt a decision following the preliminary examination stage — Failure to act (Arts 108(3) TFEU and 265 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(2), (3) and (4), 10(1), 13(1) and 20(2)) (see paras 27-31, 34, 35)

2. State aid — Examination of complaints — Obligations of the Commission — Obligation to examine information relating to alleged unlawful aid — No procedural requirements for lodging a complaint (Arts 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10(1) and 20(2)) (see paras 33, 36-38)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07 Ryanair v Commission upholding in part an action for failure to act seeking a finding that the Commission had unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on Ryanair’s complaints concerning aid allegedly granted by Italy to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana in the form of various measures granting advantages to those companies.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Commission v Ryanair

(Case C-615/11 P)

‛Appeal — Action for failure to act — Article 232 EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 20(2) — State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines — Complaint — Lack of a decision from the Commission’

1. Actions for failure to act — Commission under an obligation to act — Obligation to examine information relating to alleged unlawful aid — Obligation either to inform the interested party in the event of insufficient grounds or to adopt a decision following the preliminary examination stage — Failure to act (Arts 108(3) TFEU and 265 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(2), (3) and (4), 10(1), 13(1) and 20(2)) (see paras 27-31, 34, 35)

2. State aid — Examination of complaints — Obligations of the Commission — Obligation to examine information relating to alleged unlawful aid — No procedural requirements for lodging a complaint (Arts 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10(1) and 20(2)) (see paras 33, 36-38)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07 Ryanair v Commission upholding in part an action for failure to act seeking a finding that the Commission had unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on Ryanair’s complaints concerning aid allegedly granted by Italy to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana in the form of various measures granting advantages to those companies.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
5

Under Article 35 of that directive, entitled ‘Cancellation period’: ‘1. Each Member State shall prescribe that a policy holder who concludes an individual life-assurance contract shall have a period of between 14 and 30 days from the time when he/she was informed that the contract had been concluded within which to cancel the contract. The giving of notice of cancellation by the policy holder shall have the effect of releasing him/her from any future obligation arising from the contract. The other legal effects and the conditions of cancellation shall be determined by the law applicable to the contract as defined in Article 32, notably as regards the arrangements for informing the policy holder that the contract has been concluded. …’
23

In Pontina Ambiente, the Court ruled that Article 10 of Directive 1999/31 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which makes the operator of a landfill site subject to a levy to be reimbursed by the local authority depositing the waste for landfill and which provides for financial penalties to be imposed on that operator for late payment of that levy, on condition however that those rules are accompanied by measures to ensure that that levy is actually reimbursed within a short time and that all the costs of recovery, and in particular, the costs resulting from late payment of amounts which that authority owes to that operator on that account, including any financial penalties which might be imposed on that operator for late payment, are passed on in the price to be paid by the authority to the operator. The Court stated that it is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions have been satisfied.
16

Furthermore, as regards the third plea put forward in the context of the financial correction applied to the expenditure effected in the olive oil sector, alleging failure to respect the period of 24 months laid down in Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, the General Court held, in paragraphs 118 to 123 of the judgment under appeal, as follows: ‘118 The fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 provides that “[a] refusal to finance may not involve … expenditure … effected prior to 24 months preceding the Commission’s written communication of the results of those checks to the Member State concerned”. 119 In the present case, it is no longer in dispute that, in accordance with the rules developed in case-law …, it is by letter AGR 16844, sent pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, that the Commission notified the results of the checks. 120 Furthermore, it is common ground that, as regards investigation HO/2002/01/ES, that letter was notified to the Kingdom of Spain on 15 July 2002. 121 It is therefore necessary only to determine which date is to be taken into consideration for calculation of the period of 24 months (dies ad quem) referred to in the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, that is to say, the date which must be regarded as being the date of effective payment of the disputed aid. 122 In the absence of precision in the relevant rules, it is necessary to refer to the case-law in the field and, in particular, to the dicta of the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-329/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-6103, paragraph 43. The Court of Justice there held, as regards payment of aid in the banana sector, that the date which must be regarded as decisive as regards application of the period of 24 months referred to in Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 (the substantive content of which corresponds in essence to that of the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999), was the date on which the final amount of compensatory aid was fixed and the balance paid. Indeed, even if they could appear in the decision clearing the accounts, the amounts paid during the preceding year constituted only advances subject to the lodging of a security, and were therefore not relevant as regards determining the date on which the aid was expended, for the purposes of applying the period of 24 months. 123 In the same way as the system of aid in the banana sector which was at issue in that judgment, it is apparent, in the present case, from the combined provisions of Article 12 of Regulation No 2261/84 and Article 16 of Regulation No 2366/98 that olive oil producers receive an advance on the aid applied for at the start of the marketing year. Payment of the balance is made by the Member State after the checks prescribed for that purpose have been carried out and in the light of the results of those checks. In such circumstances, it is the date of payment of the balance of the payments which determines the calculation of the period of 24 months.’
5

Article 5 of that directive, headed ‘Written confirmation of information’, provides: ‘1. The consumer must receive written confirmation or confirmation in another durable medium available and accessible to him of the information referred to in Article 4(1)(a) to (f), in good time during the performance of the contract, and at the latest at the time of delivery where goods not for delivery to third parties are concerned, unless the information has already been given to the consumer prior to conclusion of the contract in writing or on another durable medium available and accessible to him. In any event the following must be provided: — written information on the conditions and procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal, within the meaning of Article 6, including the cases referred to in the first indent of Article 6(3), — the geographical address of the place of business of the supplier to which the consumer may address any complaints, — information on after-sales services and guarantees which exist, — the conclusion for cancelling the contract, where it is of unspecified duration or a duration exceeding one year. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to services which are performed through the use of a means of distance communication, where they are supplied on only one occasion and are invoiced by the operator of the means of distance communication. Nevertheless, the consumer must in all cases be able to obtain the geographical address of the place of business of the supplier to which he may address any complaints.’