ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑81/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 2000/59/EC – Waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of 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. 16)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need to ensure that directives are effective – Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 17, 19)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2000/59 – Ship-generated waste and cargo residues (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59, Art. 5(1) and (3)) (see paras 20-21, 28, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues – Commission declaration (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to develop, implement and approve waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑58/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/110/EC – Assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of 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. 7)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 11, 13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Partial, incorrect or non-existent transposition of Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) – Lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of those measures and that of the directive – Excessively wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to operating permits and the situations in which the conditions laid down under the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑286/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 28 EC – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Requirement of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer – Exemption from the requirement to submit invoices or other documents showing transfer of ownership by previous owners

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 26, 28, 32, 35, 38-39, 43, 46-48, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 28 EC –National rule making the registration of second-hand vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State subject to the submission of an excerpt from the entry on the commercial register of the vehicle’s seller, whereas vehicles previously registered in Luxembourg are not subject to such a requirement – Obstacle to the free movement of goods – Lack of justification and proportionality.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring, in accordance with the practice in issue, for the purposes of the registration of vehicles in Luxembourg, the submission of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer, except for dealers on the register of the Société Nationale de Contrôle Technique, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑311/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 89/105/EEC – Inclusion of medicinal products for human use in national health insurance systems – Article 6(1) – List of medicinal products covered by the national health insurance system establishing three separate categories with different conditions for reimbursement – Time-limit for adopting a decision on an application for inclusion of a medicinal product in the categories of that list offering the most favourable reimbursement conditions

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. 26)

2. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use – Application for inclusion of a medicinal product in the list of medicinal products covered by the national health insurance system (Council Directive 89/105, Art. 6(1), first para.) (see paras 33-39)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) – National legislation on social security establishing a list of medicinal products covered by the health insurance system comprising three categories of medicinal products with different conditions for reimbursement – Failure to have set a time-limit as required by Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105/EEC for decisions relating to the inclusion of medicinal products in the most favourable categories.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to lay down a time-limit, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems, for the adoption of decisions relating to applications for inclusion of medicinal products in the yellow or green categories of the medicinal products reimbursement code provided for by the general Law on social insurance (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz), as amended by the Law of 2003 amending social insurance (Sozialversicherungs-Änderungsgesetz 2003), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑368/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/59/EC – Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues – Failure to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all ports

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. 12)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need to ensure that directives are effective (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 16)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2000/59 – Ship-generated waste and cargo residues (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59, Arts 3(b), 5(1) and 16(1)) (see paras 17-22, operative part)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to prepare and adopt waste reception and handling plans for every Italian port, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2008 – Commission v Slovakia

(Case C‑493/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/22/EC – Article 26(3) – Electronic communications – Networks and services – Single European emergency call number – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that undertakings which operate public telephone networks make, in so far as it is technically feasible, caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Greece

(Case C-406/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Direct taxation – Taxation of dividends from shares in companies – Rate of taxation for partnerships

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Art. 43 EC and 56 EC) (see para. 22)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Tax legislation – Corporation tax (Art. 43 EC and 56 EC; EEA Agreement, Arts 31 and 40) (see paras 25-28, operative part)

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation (Art. 43 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 40) (see paras 39-43, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC – National rules providing for tax exemption for dividends distributed by national companies but not for dividends distributed by companies whose seat is in another Member State.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than that applied to domestic dividends, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding articles of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 40 thereof;

Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of the Income Tax Code (Law 2238/1994, as amended by Law 3296/2004), by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States

–

Obligations

–

Implementation of directives

–

Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 9-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
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. 226 EC) (see para. 19)

2. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 21)

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – National legislation reserving the posts of captain and chief mate on all vessels flying the flag of a Member State, other than merchant ships with a gross tonnage of less than 100 GT which carry cargo or fewer than 100 passengers, to nationals (Art. 39 EC) (see para. 23, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 39 EC – Requirement of Spanish nationality for persons occupying the posts of captain and chief mate on certain ships flying the Spanish flag – Incompatibility with Community law.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that in requiring in its legislation Spanish nationality for persons occupying the posts of ship’s captain and chief mate of all vessels flying the Spanish flag other than merchant ships with a gross tonnage of less than 100 GT, which carry cargo or fewer than 100 passengers and operate exclusively between ports or points situated in areas in which the Kingdom of Spain has sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law and, in particular, under Article 39 EC;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Visas, asylum, immigration – Crossing of the Member States’ external borders – Conditions of movement of third country nationals subject to a visa requirement

(Council Regulation No 539/2001, Arts 1(1) and 2; European Parliament and Council Decision No 896/2006)

Summary

Decision No 896/2006 establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory must be interpreted as meaning that the residence permits listed in the annex to that decision, issued by the Swiss Confederation or the Principality of Liechtenstein to third‑country nationals subject to a visa requirement, are considered to be equivalent to a transit visa only. As regards entering the territory of the Member States for the purpose of transit, the requirements laid down in Articles 1(1) and 2 of Regulation No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement are fulfilled if the person covered by that decision is in possession of a residence permit issued by the Swiss Confederation or the Principality of Liechtenstein and listed in the annex to that decision.

(see para. 32, operative part)
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. 226 EC) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments falling within Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997, L 10, p. 13).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to draw up within the prescribed period an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive.

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
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. 226 EC) (see para. 9

)

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 Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Circumvention

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 13)

2. Free movement of goods – Trade with non-member countries – Inward processing system – Scope

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 551(1))

Summary

1. Article 13 of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community is inapplicable in the absence of a Council decision, adopted on a proposal from the Commission to extend the application of anti-dumping duties to imports from third countries of like products or parts thereof.

(see paras 17-20, operative part 1)

2. An operation which consists in merely sending goods over the border after processing them into a product which is not subject to anti-dumping duties without any actual intention to re-export them and re-importing them shortly after cannot lawfully be placed under the inward processing procedure. In that connection, the aim of the inward processing procedure is to exempt from customs duties only those goods which are brought into the Community customs territory on a temporary basis in order that they may be worked, repaired or processed and then re-exported, thus preventing economic activity in Community countries from being penalised. Accordingly, a practice such as that described above is contrary to the very aim of the inward processing procedure and would undermine the effectiveness of the Community rules.

An importer who improperly brings himself within that procedure and benefits from it is required to pay the duties on the products concerned, without prejudice, where appropriate, to administrative, civil or criminal sanctions provided for by national law. It is for the national court having jurisdiction in the matter to determine whether the operation concerned be regarded as irregular in the light of Community law.

(see paras 23-30, operative part 2)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
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. 226 EC) (see para. 8

)

Subject of the case

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC or, in any event, by not communicating those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.