ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Company law

(Art. 56(1) EC)

Summary

A Member State which maintains in force legislation which, in derogation from ordinary company law, combines a limitation of the voting rights of every shareholder in a given company to 20% of that company’s share capital with the requirement of a majority of over 80% of the company’s capital for the adoption of certain decisions by the general assembly, and which, in derogation from the general law, allows a Member State and a territorial entity of that State each to appoint two representatives to the company’s supervisory board, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.

The fixing of the threshold of the required majority at more than 80% of the capital, being a requirement derogating from general law and imposed by way of specific legislation, affords any shareholder holding 20% of the share capital a blocking minority and in this case creates an instrument enabling the public authorities to procure for themselves a blocking minority allowing them to oppose important resolutions, on the basis of a lower level of investment than would be required under general company law. By capping voting rights at the same level of 20%, the specific legislation supplements a legal framework which enables the said public authorities to exercise considerable influence on the basis of such a reduced investment. By limiting the possibility for other shareholders to participate in the company with a view to establishing or maintaining lasting and direct economic links with it which would make possible effective participation in the management of that company or in its control, such a situation is liable to deter direct investors from other Member States, thereby diminishing the interest in acquiring a stake in the capital of that company and thus constituting a restriction on the movement of capital.

The same applies to the right to appoint two representatives to the company’s supervisory board, being a specific right, in derogation from general company law, laid down by a national legislative measure for the sole benefit of the public authorities. By enabling those authorities to participate in a more significant manner in the activity of the supervisory board than their status as shareholders would normally allow, that measure thus establishes an instrument which gives the public authorities the possibility of exercising influence which exceeds their levels of investment.

(see paras 43-46, 50-52, 54, 56, 59, 61-62, 64, 66, 68, 82, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/12 – Products subject to excise duty – Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable

(Council Directive 92/12, Art. 9(3))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/12 – Products subject to excise duty – Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable

(Council Directive 92/12, Art. 9(3))

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/12 – Products subject to excise duty – Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable

(Council Directive 92/12, Arts 7(4) and 9(3))

Summary

1. Article 9(3) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products does not allow Member States generally to impose excise duty in the Member State of consumption on heating oil acquired in another Member State by a private individual for own use and transported by him to the Member State of consumption, irrespective of the means of transport used.

A Member State can use the option provided for in that provision only when the goods are transported by the private individual using a means of transport which falls within the meaning of ‘atypical modes of transport’ according to the definition in that provision.

(see paras 31-32, operative part 1)

2. The transport by a private individual of 3 000 litres of heating oil in three ‘intermediate bulk containers’ on board a van constitutes an atypical mode of transport within the meaning of Article 9(3) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products.

(see para. 41, operative part 2)

3. Article 7(4) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products does not preclude the legislation of a Member State of destination in which excise duty is chargeable, as allowed under Article 9(3) of that directive, from imposing on any private individual who has personally acquired, for his own use, heating oil in another Member State where it has been made available for consumption, and transported the product himself to the Member State of destination by means of an atypical mode of transport, within the meaning of Article 9(3), to have lodged a guarantee to ensure payment of the excise duties and to have an accompanying document as well as a document confirming lodgement of the guarantee of payment of the excise duties.

As is clear from the 13th recital and Article 18 of the directive, the purpose of the accompanying document is to identify the goods transported and to make the tax status of the consignment immediately identifiable; a Member State of destination cannot therefore be precluded from requiring, for that purpose, that a private individual transporting heating oil by an atypical mode of transport carry such documents.

(see paras 54-56, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Formal notice

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Freedom of establishment – Citizenship of the European Union

(Arts 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC)

Summary

1. The reasoned opinion must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which led the Commission to conclude that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the EC Treaty. On the other hand, the letter of formal notice cannot be subject to such strict requirements of precision, since it cannot, of necessity, contain anything more than an initial brief summary of the complaints. There is therefore nothing to prevent the Commission from setting out in detail in the reasoned opinion the complaints which it has already made more generally in the letter of formal notice.

(see para. 10)

2. A Member State which excludes, in accordance with its legislation, dwellings in another Member State from eligibility for the subsidy for owner-occupied dwellings granted to persons liable to unlimited taxation on income, fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.

That legislation has a deterrent effect on persons liable to unlimited taxation on income in that Member State who have the right to freedom of movement under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and who wish to build or purchase a dwelling for their own occupation in another Member State. Such a restriction cannot be justified by the aim of encouraging the building of dwellings in the territory of that Member State in order to ensure an adequate supply of housing, in so far as it goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

(see paras 24, 27, 31, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Meaning

(Art. 28 EC)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

1. Article 28 EC reflects the obligation to respect the principles of non-discrimination and of mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States, as well as the principle of ensuring free access of Community products to national markets. Measures adopted by a Member State the object or effect of which is to treat products coming from other Member States less favourably are to be regarded as measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, as are, in the absence of harmonisation of national legislation, obstacles to the free movement of goods which are the consequence of applying, to goods coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods even if those rules apply to all products alike. Any other measure which hinders access of products originating in other Member States to the market of a Member State is also covered by that concept.

(see paras 34-35, 37)

2. A Member State which, for reasons of road safety, prohibits mopeds, motorcycles, motor tricycles and quadricycles from towing a trailer specially designed for them and lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States has not failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

Such a prohibition certainly constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports prohibited by that article to the extent that its effect is to hinder access to the market at issue for trailers specifically designed for motorcycles inasmuch as it has a considerable influence on the behaviour of consumers and prevents a demand from existing in the market at issue for such trailers.

However, that prohibition must be regarded as justified by reasons relating to the protection of road safety. Whilst it is true that it is for a Member State which invokes an imperative requirement as justification for the hindrance to free movement of goods to demonstrate that its rules are appropriate and necessary to attain the legitimate objective being pursued, that burden of proof cannot be so extensive as to require the Member State to prove, positively, that no other conceivable measure could enable that objective to be attained under the same conditions.

Although it is possible, in the present case, to envisage that measures other than the prohibition at issue could guarantee a certain level of road safety for the circulation of a combination composed of a motorcycle and a trailer, the fact remains that Member States cannot be denied the possibility of attaining an objective such as road safety by the introduction of general and simple rules which will be easily understood and applied by drivers and easily managed and supervised by the competent authorities.

(see paras 56-58, 66-67, 69)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-90/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 79/1072/EEC – VAT – Refund – Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need for clear and precise application (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 10)

2. 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. 11)

3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 7(4) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) – Delays in refunds of VAT paid to taxable persons not established within the country

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 – Commission v Ireland

(Case C‑46/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/79/EC – Working conditions – Organisation of working time – Mobile workers in civil aviation – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 5)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (OJ 2000 L 302, p. 57)

Operative part:

The Court :

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-180/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/100/EEC – Rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property – Public lending right – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to apply the provisions on public lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 – Commission v Austria

(Case C-262/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/19/EC – Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications – Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Naipes Heraclio Fournier v OHIM

(Case C‑311/05 P)

Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Community trade mark – Figurative marks comprising the representation of a ‘sword’, a ‘knight of clubs’ and a ‘king of swords’ in a pack of cards – Declaration of invalidity of the mark

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 39, 42-43)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2005 in Joined Cases T‑160/02 to T‑162/02 Naipes Heraclio Fournier v OHIM (intervener: France Cartes SAS), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 February 2002, allowing the applications for declarations of invalidity brought by France Cartes SAS in respect of three figurative marks of which the applicant is proprietor.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2008 – Ferriere Nord v Commission

(Case C-49/05 P)

Appeal – State aid – Formal examination procedure – Community framework for State aid for environmental protection – Rights of the parties – Invitation to submit observations – Article 88(2) EC – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty – Environmental purpose of the investment

1. State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Requirement to act within a reasonable time (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7(6)) (see paras 48-50)

2. State aid – Administrative procedure – Right of the parties concerned to submit their comments – Amendment during the procedure of the applicable Community guidelines (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 68, 78, 81)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Plea unsupported by legal argument – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 99)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 127)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 November 2004 in Case T‑176/01 Ferriere Nord v Commission , dismissing an action for, first, the annulment of Commission Decision 2001/829/EC, ECSC of 28 March 2001 on the State aid which Italy is planning to grant to Ferriere Nord SpA (OJ 2001 L 310, p. 22), declaring incompatible with the common market aid notified as environmental aid which the autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy) is planning to grant to the applicant in the form of a financial contribution to investments in new plant for the production of electrowelded wire mesh to reduce noise and eliminate waste in the form of iron oxide, and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following adoption of that decision.

Operative part:

The Court

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise – Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12).

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 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, 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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States

–

Obligations

–

Implementation of directives

–

Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 6-7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 106).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, in respect of the Åland Islands, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), 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 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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2 of Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major‑accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.