ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’

(Council Regulation No 2658/87; Commission Regulation No 2388/2000)

Summary

The Combined Nomenclature which is laid down in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version applicable in 2001, namely that deriving from Regulation No 2388/2000 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, must be interpreted as meaning that bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ fall respectively under its subheadings 8101 91 10 and 8102 91 10. Such bars, which consist of the metals in question in their unwrought form and not of articles thereof, cannot be processed, by being broken up or shattered, into scrap falling respectively under subheadings 8101 91 90 and 8102 91 90 of that Combined Nomenclature.

In that regard, according to the Explanatory Notes of the Harmonised System of the World Customs Organisation to headings 81.01 and 81.02 of that system, bars of tungsten or molybdenum obtained simply by sintering are the product of a process involving the coalescing into a solid and resistant mass of powder particles, without the bars disintegrating. In the absence of subsequent finishing or processing of those bars the fact that, because of sintering, the tungsten or molybdenum is also no longer in powder form, but is a solid mass, cannot, as such, have the consequence that the metals in question are no longer to be regarded as being in their unwrought form, at least for the purposes of application of the Combined Nomenclature. In addition, it follows from the very wording of subheadings 8101 91 10 and 8201 91 10 of the Combined Nomenclature that those metals in their unwrought form include, for the purposes of the Combined Nomenclature, ‘bars and rods obtained simply by sintering’. It follows that, since bars of tungsten and molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ correspond to those metals in their unwrought form for the purposes of headings 8101 and 8102 of the Combined Nomenclature respectively, such bars cannot be regarded as coming also within the concept of ‘articles of those metals’ within the meaning of those headings and that they cannot, consequently, be made definitely not usable as such because of breakage or cutting up.

(see paras 52-56, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Procedures for the award of public works contracts

–

Directive 93/37

–

Scope (Council Directive 93/37) (see paras 29-38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and Articles 7 and 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) – Infringement of the principles of transparency and non‑discrimination – Public works carried out by means of ‘project financing’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in so far as the Comune di l’Aquila (Commune of Aquila) awarded a public works contract concerning the design and construction of a rubber-tyred tramway for public transport in that town by means of a procedure different from those laid down for the award of public works contracts by Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Grounds for revocation of the trade mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 12(1))

2. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Grounds for revocation of the trade mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 12(1))

Summary

1. The concept of ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be understood to denote use that is not merely token, serving solely to preserve the rights conferred by the mark. Such use must be actual use, consistent with the essential function of a trade mark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others which have another origin.

It follows that the concept of ‘genuine use’ of the mark entails use of the mark by the proprietor on the market for the goods or services protected by that mark and not just internal use within the undertaking concerned. The protection that the mark confers and the consequences of registering it in terms of enforceability vis-à-vis third parties cannot continue to operate if the mark loses its commercial raison d’être, which is to create or preserve an outlet for the goods or services that bear the sign of which it is composed, as distinct from the goods or services of other undertakings.

(see paras 13-14)

2. Article 12(1) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be construed as meaning that a trade mark is put to genuine use where a non-profit-making association uses the trade mark, in its relations with the public, in announcements of forthcoming events, on business papers and on advertising material and where the association’s members wear badges featuring that trade mark when collecting and distributing donations.

The fact that a charitable association does not seek to make a profit does not mean that its objective cannot be to create and, later, to preserve an outlet for its goods or services. In addition, paid welfare services exist. In modern society, various types of non-profit-making association have sprung up which, at first sight, offer their services free but which, in reality, are financed through subsidies or receive payment in various forms.

(see paras 17-18, 24)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council Directive 92/51, Arts 1(a) and 3) (see paras 27-28, 46, operative part)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council Directive 92/51, Art. 12) (see paras 35-37, 46, operative part)

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council Directive 92/51, Art. 4(1)(b), third subpara.) (see paras 43-46, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3, 4(1)(b) and 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the Hellenic Republic,

– by failing to recognise the opticians’ diplomas granted by the competent Italian authorities following training given under an agreement pursuant to which training given in Greece by a private body is homologated by those authorities;

– by making consideration of applications for recognition of Italian opticians’ diplomas subject to the provision, by the Italian authorities, of the answers to five questions previously sent to them by the Greek authorities; and

– by allowing applicants for recognition of Italian opticians’ diplomas, who applied before the entry into force of Law 2916/2001 on the structure of university or similar education and the regulation of questions on the technological sector of that education, no choice between an adaptation period and an aptitude test,

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3, the third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) and Article 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Restrictions

(Arts 43 EC and 46 EC)

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC where its national legislation requires, for the registration of partnerships or companies in the commercial register on application by persons who are nationals of the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 – with the exception of the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta – and are members of a partnership or have minority holdings in a limited liability company, a determination by a labour market service that they are self-employed or the presentation of a work permit exemption certificate. Article 43 EC prohibits the Member States from laying down in their laws conditions for the pursuit of activities by persons exercising their right of establishment which differ from those laid down for their own nationals. Thus, requiring only nationals of those eight new Member States to comply, with regard to their access to those activities, with formalities which go beyond those applicable to nationals of the host State, clearly infringes that rule.

The only derogation under which the difference in treatment may fall is provided for in Article 46 EC, according to which discriminatory measures can be justified only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In that regard, even supposing that a danger of circumvention of the transitional rules governing the freedom of movement for workers from those eight new Member States is liable to interfere with the public policy of the Member State concerned, in the absence of proof by the latter to the requisite legal standard that the objective concerning the proper working of the labour market which is pursued by the legislation in question makes it necessary to put in place a general system of prior authorisation, applying to all economic operators concerned from those eight new Member States, and that that objective cannot be achieved by measures less restrictive of the freedom of establishment, the restriction on the freedom of establishment at issue is not justified.

(see paras 28-30, 32, 38, 41-42, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Technical conservation measures – Prohibition on pelagic driftnets more than 2.5 kilometres long (Council Regulation No 809/2007) (see paras 36-38, 43-45)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 49-54)

3. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Technical conservation measures – Prohibition on pelagic driftnets more than 2.5 kilometres long (Council Regulation No 809/2007) (see paras 63-70)

Subject of the case

Re:

Action for annulment – Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1) – Concept of ‘drift nets’ – Inclusion in that concept of stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ – Infringement of the obligation to provide reasons and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see paras 43-44)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 49)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Insufficient or inadequate transposition of a directive (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 54)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) – Time at which the electricity tax becomes chargeable.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adapt, by 1 January 2006, its system of electricity tax, with regard to the time at which the electricity tax becomes chargeable, to the requirements of the first subparagraph of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mebrom NV to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action – Altered by reason of a change in Community law – Whether lawful – Conditions (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 23)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Purpose (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 26-27)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Action in respect of an administrative practice contrary to Community law – Lawfulness – Conditions (Art. 10 EC, 211 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 32-36)

4. Approximation of laws – Official control of animal feed and food (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 882/2004, Art. 4(2)(c)) (see paras 45-46)

5. 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. 47)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1) – Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having adopted all the measures necessary to remedy the shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 10(2)(a))

Summary

A medicinal product which falls outside the scope of Regulation No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and the placing of which on the market in a Member State was not authorised in accordance with the applicable Community law, cannot be considered to be a reference medicinal product within the meaning of Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27.

In order that a medicinal product may be considered to be a reference medicinal product, it must have been authorised in accordance with Community law before being placed on the market. It is apparent both from the wording and from the broad logic of Directive 2001/83, in particular from Articles 6, 8 and 10, that only those medicinal products benefiting from a marketing authorisation issued in accordance with that directive can be considered to be reference medicinal products. Likewise, as regards medicinal products for which that authorisation was sought prior to the entry into force of that directive, in order to benefit from the abridged procedure, the applicant must show that the reference medicinal product was authorised on the basis of the Community law in force at the time of the application for marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product.

It is only in the case where the competent authority has all the particulars and documents relating to the reference medicinal product that Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83 replaces the obligation on applicants for marketing authorisation to provide results of the tests and trials referred to in Article 8(3)(i) of that directive with the obligation to demonstrate that the medicinal product in question is so similar to that reference medicinal product, which already benefits from such an authorisation, that it does not differ significantly from that product as regards safety and efficacy.

(see paras 27, 30, 33, 37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Support for rural development – Support for agri-environmental production methods

(Council Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2223/2004, Arts 24(1), 37(4) and 39(3))

Summary

The provisions of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), as amended by Regulation No 2223/2004, read in conjunction with Articles 37(4) and 39 of that regulation, do not preclude a Member State from restricting, on account of insufficient budgetary resources, the class of recipients of rural development support to farmers already concerned by a decision to grant such support in the previous budgetary year.

Having regard to the objective of Regulation No 1257/1999 which is designed to promote agri-environmental and rural development in general, the Member States must try to manage their financial resources adequately so as to enable each eligible applicant, within the meaning of that regulation, to benefit from rural development support. However, under Articles 37(4) and 39(3) of that regulation, the Member States may lay down further or more restrictive conditions for granting Community support for rural development, provided that such conditions are consistent with the objectives and requirements laid down in the regulation and that support measures may, where necessary, be subsequently revised by the Member States in order to ensure compatibility and consistency. Therefore, agri-environmental support programming is likely to evolve, since the adaptation of the scheme must be managed in accordance with the objectives of that regulation.

Taking account of the background of insufficient budgetary resources recorded in the Member State concerned, the choice made by the national legislature in order to limit the class of farmers who were able to benefit from rural development support to farmers having already given agri-environmental commitments in the previous budgetary year is within the discretion available to the Member States under Regulation No 1257/1999.

(see paras 38-40, 48, 54, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Préjudice constitué par les frais afférents à la procédure précontentieuse (Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87) (see paras 20-23)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(e)) (see paras 36-43)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 August 2007 in Case T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law the claim for damages for the loss purportedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the appellant’s complaint relating to an alleged infringement by Eurocontrol of the EC Treaty provisions on competition.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Rights conferred by a trade mark – Protection of the trade mark extended to non-similar products or services

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 9(1)(c))

2. Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Rights conferred by a trade mark – Protection of the trade mark extended to non-similar products or services

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 9(1)(c))

Summary

1. According to its terms, Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark does indeed benefit a Community trade mark in respect of goods or services which are not similar to those for which that mark is registered.

However, notwithstanding its wording and in the light of the overall scheme and objectives of which Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation is part, the protection accorded to Community trade marks with a reputation cannot be less where a sign is used for identical goods and services than where a sign is used for non-similar goods or services.

It must for that reason be accepted that Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation also benefits a Community trade mark with a reputation in respect of goods or services similar to those for which that mark is registered.

(see paras 17-19)

2. Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to benefit from the protection afforded in that provision, a Community trade mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark, in a substantial part of the territory of the Community, and that, according to the facts of the particular case, the territory of the Member State in question may be considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the Community.

(see para. 30, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by having failed to subject discharges of urban waste water from Craigavon (Ballynacor and Bullay’s Hill treatment plants) and Magherafelt to more stringent treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

4. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.