ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C-120/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 1999/31/EC – Landfilling of waste – Concept of ‘underground storage’, ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’ – Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality – Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit with regard to the Walloon Region

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. 19)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need for full transposition into national law – Fact that an activity mentioned by a directive is not carried on in one region of a Member State – No effect – Exception – Reasons of geography – Definition (Art. 249, third para, EC; Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 2(f)) (see paras 23-24)

3. Environment – Waste – Landfill of waste – Directive 1999/31 (Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 2) (see paras 27-33)

4. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 37)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose fully into Walloon law Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) – Concept of ‘underground storage’, of ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’ – Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure the transposition with regard to the Walloon Region of Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 – Commission v Estonia

(Case C-515/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/21/EC – Management of waste from extractive industries – 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. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/21) (see paras 9-12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15).

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 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑164/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409/EEC – Derogations from the system of protection for wild birds – Hunting

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. 19)

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Conditions – No other satisfactory solution – Conditions not satisfied – Unlawful (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7 and 9) (see paras 22-27)

3. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Conditions – Fixing for a period of five years the number of specimens that may be taken (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7 and 9) (see paras 29-30)

4. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Conditions – Capture in small numbers – Fixing the number of birds that may be hunted at a level clearly higher than the limit fixed by the directive – Unlawful (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7 and 9(1)(c)) (see paras 35-40)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) – Derogations from the system of protection for wild birds – Veneto Region.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds that fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 – Commission v Austria

(Case C-433/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Taxation – Directive 2006/112/EC – VAT – Taxable amount – Tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State based on their value and their average consumption – ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 78) (see paras 33-35, 38-39, 43, 46)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 78 and 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Sale of a motor vehicle – Inclusion in the taxable amount of a tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State concerned on the basis of their value and their average consumption (‘Normverbrauschasbgage’).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by including the standard consumption tax (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) in the taxable amount of value added tax levied in Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2011 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-303/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Aid to firms investing in the municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002 – Recovery

1. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Obligations of the Member States – Duty to recover – Implications (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, recital 13 and Art. 14(3); Commission Decision 2005/315, Art. 5(3)) (see paras 29-31, 41)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Decision ordering recovery of unlawful aid – Defences – Absolutely impossible to implement – Criteria for assessment – Difficulties in implementing – Duty of the Commission and the Member State to work together in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC) (see paras 33-38)

3. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Action before the national court against national implementing measures – Preliminary plea challenging the legality of that decision – Grant by that court of provisional suspension measures – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 88(2) EC; Commission Decision 2005/315) (see paras 45-46)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002 (notified under document No C(2004) 3893) (OJ 2005 L 100, p. 46).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries all the aid granted under the aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision;
8

Article 6 of Regulation No 60/2004 provides: ‘Abnormal stocks 1. The Commission determines by 31 October 2004 at the latest, for each new Member State, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, the quantity of sugar as such or in processed products, isoglucose and fructose exceeding the quantity considered as being normal carry-over stock at 1 May 2004 and which has to be eliminated from the market at the expense of the new Member States. To determine this surplus quantity, account is in particular taken of the development during the year preceding accession in relation to the previous years of: (a) imported and exported quantities of sugar as such or in processed products, isoglucose and fructose; (b) production, consumption and stocks of sugar and isoglucose; (c) the circumstances in which stocks were built up. 2. The new Member State concerned ensures the elimination from the market of a quantity of sugar or isoglucose, without Community intervention, equal to the surplus quantity referred to in paragraph 1, by 30 April 2005 the latest: (a) by export without refund from the Community; (b) by use in the sector of combustibles; (c) by denaturation without aid for animal feed … 3. For the application of paragraph 2, the competent authorities of the new Member States shall dispose on 1 May 2004 of a system for the identification of traded or produced surplus quantities of sugar as such or in processed products, isoglucose or fructose, at the level of the main operators concerned. … The new Member State shall use that system to compel the operators concerned to eliminate from the market at their own expense an equivalent quantity of sugar or isoglucose of their determined individual surplus quantity. The operators concerned shall provide the proof, to the satisfaction of the new Member State, that products were eliminated from the market by 30 April 2005 at the latest. In case such proof is not provided, the new Member State shall charge an amount equal to the quantity in question multiplied by the highest import charges applicable to the product concerned during the period from 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2005, increased by EUR 1.21/100 kg in white sugar or dry matter equivalent. The amount referred to in the third subparagraph shall be assigned to the national budget of the new Member State. …’
29

It is on that basis that the Bundesverwaltungsgericht decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1 (a) Is the [first sentence of the second subparagraph] of Article 2(2) of Directive [2003/4] to be interpreted as meaning that only bodies and institutions for whom it is, under the law of the Member State, to take the final (binding) decision in the legislative process act in a legislative capacity, or do bodies and institutions which have been given certain functions and rights of involvement in the legislative process by the law of the Member State, in particular to table a draft law and to give opinions on draft laws, also act in a legislative capacity? (b) May the Member States exclude bodies and institutions acting in a judicial or legislative capacity from the definition of “public authority” only if their constitutional provisions at the date of the adoption of the directive made no provision for a review procedure within the meaning of Article 6 of Directive [2003/4]? (c) Are bodies and institutions, when acting in a legislative capacity, excluded from the definition of “public authority” only for the period until the conclusion of the legislative process? 2 (a) Is the confidentiality of proceedings within the meaning of indent (a) [of the first subparagraph] of Article 4(2) of Directive [2003/4] provided for by law where the national-law provision enacted to implement Directive [2003/4] lays down generally that a request for access to environmental information is to be refused if the disclosure of the information would adversely affect the confidentiality of the proceedings of authorities which are required to provide information, or is it necessary, for that purpose, for a separate statutory provision to provide for the confidentiality of the proceedings? (b) Is the confidentiality of proceedings within the meaning of indent (a) [of the first subparagraph] of Article 4(2) of Directive [2003/4] provided for by law where under national law there is a general unwritten legal principle that the administrative proceedings of public authorities are not public?’
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Special scheme for travel agencies

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 26)

Summary

Article 26 of Sixth Council Directive 77/338 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as not applying to the sale by a travel agent of opera tickets in isolation, without the provision of a travel service.

That provision introduces an exception to the general rules on the taxable amount with respect to certain operations of travel agents and tour operators and, being an exception to the normal rules of the Sixth Directive, that article must be applied only to the extent necessary to achieve its objective.

The application of that special scheme to an activity by which the travel agent merely sells tickets for performances without providing a travel service would distort competition, in view of the fact that a given activity would be taxed differently according to whether or not the trader selling those tickets was a travel agent.

(see paras 16, 24-25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Scope

2. Social policy – Male and female workers – Framework agreement on parental leave concluded by the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 96/34

(Council Directive 96/34, as amended by Directive 97/75, annex, clause 2.1)

3. Social policy – Male and female workers – Framework agreement on parental leave concluded by the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 96/34

(Council Directive 96/34, as amended by Directive 97/75, annex, clause 2.1)

Summary

1. Since the framework agreement – which is the product of a dialogue, based on the Agreement on Social Policy, between management and labour at European level – has been implemented, in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Agreement on Social Policy, by a Council directive, of which it is thus an integral component, the jurisdiction of the Court to interpret the framework agreement does not differ from its general jurisdiction to interpret other provisions contained in directives.

(see paras 25-26)

2. Clause 2.1 of the framework agreement on parental leave, which is set out in the annex to Directive 96/34 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 97/75, cannot be interpreted as conferring an individual right to parental leave on the child. This follows from both the wording and the purpose of the framework agreement.

(see paras 32, 40, operative part 1)

3. Clause 2.1 of the framework agreement on parental leave, which is set out in the annex to Directive 96/34 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 97/75, is not to be interpreted as requiring the birth of twins to confer entitlement to a number of periods of parental leave equal to the number of children born. However, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment, this clause obliges the national legislature to establish a parental leave regime which, according to the situation obtaining in the Member State concerned, ensures that the parents of twins receive treatment that takes due account of their particular needs. It is incumbent upon national courts to determine whether the national rules meet that requirement and, if necessary, to interpret those national rules, so far as possible, in conformity with European Union law.

The framework agreement lays down only minimum requirements, allowing the Member States to determine in their discretion the conditions of access and detailed rules for parental leave, including discretion to lay down adjustments to the rules for the case of successive births of children, and permitting them to adopt other measures that are appropriate for the purpose of meeting the particular needs of the parents of twins, such as material assistance, in the form, for example, of a right of access to childcare centres, or financial aid, in the form, inter alia, of specific benefits allowing the method of care to be freely chosen.

(see paras 69-70, 73-75, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22

(European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/20, Art. 6(2), and 2002/22, Arts 3(2) and 8(1))

Summary

Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/22 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) permits Member States, when they decide to designate one or more undertakings under that provision to guarantee the provision of universal service, or different elements of universal service, as identified in Articles 4 to 7 and 9(2) of that same directive, to impose on such undertakings only the specific obligations, provided for in the directive, that are associated with the provision of that service, or elements thereof, to end-users by the designated undertakings themselves.

While, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Universal Service Directive, it is for the Member States to determine ‘the most efficient and appropriate approach for ensuring the implementation of universal service’, the discretion conferred on Member States by that provision does not permit them to impose on individual undertakings specific obligations other than those falling within the cases contemplated in Article 6(2) of Directive 2002/20 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services.

(see paras 38, 40, 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. 258 TFEU) (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 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1).

Operative part

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 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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



Operative part

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

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 February 2010 in Case T‑340/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to rule on the claim of Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE that, notwithstanding the termination of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract, the Commission should be ordered to pay it the amount of EUR 172 588.62, corresponding to the costs not already reimbursed by the Commission which were incurred by the appellant in connection with that contract;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on that claim of Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE;

3. Reserves 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. 258 TFEU; Council Directive 2005/47) (see paras 8, 11-13)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 9)

Subject of the case

Re:

Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt and/or notify, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions provided for by Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector (OJ 2005 L 195, p. 15).

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 Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.