ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 6)

2. Approximation of laws – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13

(Council Directive 93/13)

3. Approximation of laws – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 3)

Summary

1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand.

The aim of Article 6 of that directive, which is to strengthen consumer protection, would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfairness of contractual terms. In addition, effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion.

(see paras 23, 28, operative part 1)

2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non‑application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction.

The court seised of the action is required to ensure the effectiveness of the protection intended to be given by the provisions of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Consequently, the role thus attributed to the national court by Community law in this area is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, including when it is assessing whether it has territorial jurisdiction. In carrying out that obligation, the national court is not, however, required under that directive to exclude the possibility that the term in question may be applicable, if the consumer, after having been informed of it by that court, does not intend to assert its unfair or non-binding status.

(see paras 32-33, 35, operative part 2)

3. It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as a term conferring jurisdiction, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, may be considered to be unfair.

(see para. 44, operative part 3)
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 all the measures 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 (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all 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 Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 37)

2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Rules of the national medical association imposing on its members established in the national territory the obligation to open a bank account with a particular bank (Art. 49 EC) (see paras 40-49, 51, operative part 1)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC – National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing an obligation on every medical doctor becoming established in Oberösterreich (Land of Upper Austria) to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank in Linz to which fees for benefits in kind in the context of the exercise of his professional activity are to be transferred by the health insurance funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 EC;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law – Direct effect – Primacy – Provision of national law laying down the principle of res judicata

Summary

Community law does not require a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a decision, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy an infringement of Community law on the part of the decision in question. The rules implementing the principle of res judicata , which are a matter for the national legal order in accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, must not, however, be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence); nor may they be framed in such a way as to make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

In that connection, the interpretation of res judicata according to which, in tax disputes, where a final judgment in a given case concerns a fundamental issue common to other cases, it has binding authority as regards that issue even if its findings were made in relation to a different tax period, is not compatible with the principle of effectiveness. Not only does an interpretation of that kind prevent a judicial decision that has acquired the force of res judicata from being called into question, even if that decision entails a breach of Community law; it also prevents any finding on a fundamental issue common to other cases, contained in a judicial decision which has acquired the force of res judicata , from being called into question in the context of judicial scrutiny of another decision taken by the relevant tax authority in respect of the same taxpayer or taxable person, but relating to a different tax year. Accordingly, if the principle of res judicata were to be applied in that manner, the effect would be that, if ever the judicial decision that had become final were based on an interpretation of the Community rules concerning abusive practice in the field of value added tax which was at odds with Community law, those rules would continue to be misapplied for each new tax year, without it being possible to rectify the interpretation. Such extensive obstacles to the effective application of the Community rules on value added tax cannot reasonably be regarded as justified in the interests of legal certainty and must therefore be considered to be contrary to the principle of effectiveness.

Consequently, Community law precludes the application, in such circumstances, of a provision of national law which seeks to lay down the principle of res judicata , in a dispute concerning value added tax relating to a tax year for which no final judicial decision has yet been delivered, to the extent that it would prevent the national court seised of that dispute from taking into consideration the rules of Community law concerning abusive practice in the field of value added tax.

(see paras 23-24, 26, 29-32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Requirement to enter in the accounts the amount of duty before communication to the debtor

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 221(1))

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Limitation period – Exception

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 221(3))

Summary

1. Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of import or export duty due may be validly communicated to the debtor by the customs authorities in accordance with appropriate procedures only if the amount of that duty has been entered in the accounts beforehand by those authorities. Such a chronological order in the procedure for entry in the accounts and communication of the amount of duty must be observed if there are not to be differences in treatment as between the persons liable and if the smooth operation of the customs union is not to be prejudiced.

(see paras 21-23, operative part 1)

2. Article 221(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may, after the expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred, validly communicate to the debtor the amount of duty legally due, where the exact amount of that duty could not be determined by those authorities as a result of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. That includes cases where the debtor has not committed that act.

That interpretation, which is apparent both from the wording and the broad logic of Article 221 of the customs code, is also borne out by the use of the words ‘such communication’ in the second sentence of Article 221(3) of the customs code, which refer back to the words ‘communication to the debtor’ in the first sentence of that provision. Thus, Article 221(3) does not confine the communication of the duty due to cases where the debtor ultimately committed the act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings.

(see paras 30-32, operative part 2)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport – Directive 2003/30

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/30, Art. 3)

2. Environment – Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport – Directive 2003/30

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/30)

Summary

1. Article 3 of Directive 2003/30 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national rules which exclude, from the tax exemption scheme provided for in those rules for biofuels, a product which is composed of a blend of vegetable oil, fossil gas oil and specific additives.

On the one hand, it is clear from recital 19 in the preamble to the directive that, although a tax exemption scheme is one of the means available to the Member States for attaining the objectives laid down in the directive, other means may also be envisaged, such as financial assistance for the processing industry and the establishment of a compulsory rate of biofuels for oil companies.

On the other hand, it is apparent from Article 3(4) of Directive 2003/30 that the Member States also enjoy a wide discretion with regard to the products which they wish to promote in order to attain the objectives laid down in the directive, for they may choose to give priority to the promotion of certain types of fuels by taking account of their overall cost-effective climate and environmental balance, while also taking into account competitiveness and security of supply.

(see paras 36-37, 41, operative part 1)

2. In the context of Directive 2003/30 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, it is not, in principle, contrary to the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations for a Member State, with regard to a product composed of a blend of vegetable oil, fossil gas oil and specific additives, to withdraw, before the expiry date initially laid down in the national rules, the tax exemption scheme which applied to that product. In any event, such a withdrawal does not require the presence of exceptional circumstances. However, it is for the national court to consider, in the context of an overall assessment in the specific case, whether those principles have been observed by taking account of all relevant circumstances.

(see para. 68, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment

–

Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment

–

Directive 85/337

–

Projects belonging to the classes listed in Annex II

–

Member States’ discretion

–

Limits (Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directives 97/11 and 2003/35, Arts 2(1), 3 and 4(2) and (3), and Annexes II and III) (see paras 29-35, 39, 42-43 and operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition of Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to a consent procedure and to an assessment of those effects, in accordance with Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to Directive 85/337, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Directive 92/85 – Prohibition of dismissal

(Council Directive 92/85, Arts 10 and 12)

2. Social policy – Male and female workers – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Directives 76/207 and 92/85

(Council Directives 76/207, as amended by directive 2002/73, Arts 2 and 3, and 92/85, Art. 10)

Summary

1. Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides a specific remedy concerning the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers or workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding laid down in Article 10, exercised according to procedural rules specific to that remedy, provided however that those rules are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and are not framed in such a way as to render practically impossible the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness). A fifteen-day limitation period applicable to an action for a declaration of nullity and for reinstatement does not appear to meet that condition, but that is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(see paras 62, 69, operative part 1)

2. Article 2, in conjunction with Article 3, of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, specific to the protection provided for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding in the event of their dismissal, which denies a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy the option to bring an action for damages whereas such an action is available to any other employee who has been dismissed, where such a limitation on remedies constitutes less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy. That would be the case, in particular, if the procedural rules relating to the only action available in the case of dismissal of such workers did not comply with the principle of effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

(see para. 76, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling

(Art. 49 EC)

2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling

(Art. 49 EC)

Summary

1. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that prohibits the advertising to residents of that State of gambling organised for the purposes of profit by private operators in other Member States.

Considerations of a cultural, moral or religious nature may justify restrictions on the freedom of gambling operators to provide services, in particular in so far as it could be considered unacceptable to allow private profit to be drawn from the exploitation of a social evil or the weakness of players and their misfortune. According to the scale of values held by each of the Member States and having regard to the discretion available to them, a Member State may restrict the operation of gambling by entrusting it to public or charitable bodies. The prohibition of the promotion of the services of such operators, which are private undertakings run for profit, to consumers resident in the Member State at issue therefore reflects the objective of the exclusion of private profit-making interests from the gambling sector and can, moreover, be regarded as necessary in order to meet such an objective.

(see paras 43-46, operative part 1)

2. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State subjecting gambling to a system of exclusive rights, according to which the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State is subject to stricter penalties than the promotion of gambling operated on national territory without a licence.

It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is true of the national legislation at issue in the main actions. That court must examine whether the two infringements at issue, although covered by different bodies of rules, are nevertheless subject to equivalent treatment under the applicable national legislation. That court must in particular ascertain whether, on the facts, those infringements are prosecuted by the competent authorities with the same diligence and lead to the imposition of equivalent penalties by the competent courts.

(see paras 55, 57, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (Council Directive 95/59, Art. 9(1)) (see paras 39-40, 43, 47-52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) – Fixing minimum prices – Approval of prices.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by providing for a minimum price for cigarettes, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Greece

(Case C-493/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/56/EC – Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies – 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. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross‑border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1).

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 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 19 of that directive;