ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Directive 2006/24 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) must be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation based on Article 8 of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights which, in order to identify an internet subscriber or user, permits an internet service provider in civil proceedings to be ordered to give a copyright holder or its representative information on the subscriber to whom the internet service provider provided an IP (internet protocol) address which was allegedly used in an infringement, since that legislation does not fall within the material scope of Directive 2006/24.

Firstly, it follows from a combined reading of Article 11 of and recital 12 in the preamble to Directive 2006/24 that that directive constitutes a special and restricted set of rules, derogating from and replacing Directive 2002/58, which is general in scope, and, in particular, Article 15(1) thereof.

Secondly, the national legislation concerned pursues an objective different from that pursued by Directive 2006/24. It concerns the communication of data, in civil proceedings, in order to obtain a declaration that there has been an infringement of intellectual property rights, while Directive 2006/24 deals exclusively with the handling and retention of data generated or processed by the providers of publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime and their communication to the competent national authorities. That the Member State concerned has not yet transposed Directive 2006/24, despite the period for doing so having expired, is in this respect irrelevant.

(see paras 40, 43, 44, 46, 61, operative part)
A Member State may not require the affixing of CE marking on a construction product not covered by Article 4(2) of Directive 89/106, originating from another Member State, in order for that product to be marketed on its territory. That Member State may subject the placing on the market of that construction product only to national provisions which comply with its obligations under the Treaty, in particular with the principle of the free movement of goods set out in Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU.

Directive 89/106 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products originating from another Member State subject to the affixing of CE marking.

Articles 34 TFEU to 37 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products originating from another Member State subject to the affixing of CE marking.

Such rules must be regarded as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU which constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods for the importer.

It is true that a restriction on the free movement of goods may be justified on one of the public interest grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or in order to meet overriding requirements. In that regard, in the absence of harmonising rules, the Member States are free to decide on their intended level of protection of human life and health and on the need to monitor the goods concerned when being used. However, legislation which prohibits, absolutely and automatically, the marketing on national territory of products do not have CE marking is not compatible with the requirement of proportionality imposed by European Union law.

(see paras 22, 26-28, 30, operative part 2)
In proceedings brought against a Commission decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market, the fact that the concentration was carried out before its notification to the Commission has no effect on the legality of that decision. Although that fact may entail the penalties prescribed by Regulation No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, in accordance with Article 14(1)(a) or (2) thereof, it cannot lead to the annulment of the Commission decision, since it has no relevance to the compatibility of the concentration with the common market. Article 7(5) of Regulation No 4064/89 provides that the validity of any transaction which is carried out before its notification and before it has been declared compatible with the common market is to be dependent on the decision taken by the Commission on conclusion of the examination of the notification or of the in-depth examination procedure.

Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings confers on the Commission the task of ensuring that the concentrations referred to it for appraisal do not create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it. It is thus not the duty of the Commission to establish a perfect competition system and to decide, in place of the economic actors, who should operate on the market.

Consequently, in the examination of the compatibility with the common market of remedial measures in the form of commitments to sell the assets of a purchased undertaking, it is not for the Commission itself to select a purchaser who might theoretically satisfy the optimal conditions for perfect competition on a specific market. In that regard, it is open to the Commission merely to approve or not approve a purchaser who is submitted to it and to determine that the purchaser is a viable existing or potential competitor, independent of and unconnected to the parties, possessing the financial resources, proven expertise and necessary incentive to be able to maintain and develop the business as an active competitive force in competition with the parties.

(see paras 66, 67, 74, 76)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 July 2010 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-8/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/46/EC – Annual accounts and consolidated accounts of companies – Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period

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. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 9-11, 13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, 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 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑276/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 2006/118/EC – Protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration – 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 2006/118) (see paras 9-12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, or to communicate within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C-321/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2007/2/EC – Environment policy – Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) – Exchange and updates of data in electronic format – Incomplete transposition

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. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, 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) (OJ 2007 L 108, 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 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 Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2011 – Nisipeanu v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Gorj and Others

(Case C‑263/10)

Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles

1. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory – Tax applicable to imported second-hand vehicles but without any equivalent for vehicles of the same age and the same condition present on the national market – Not permissible (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 28-29, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation – Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation – Retroactive effect – Limitation by the Court – Conditions – Importance for the Member State concerned of the financial consequences of the judgment – Criterion not conclusive (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 32-36)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunalul Gorj – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State – Classification of the criterion of ‘date of first registration’ – Whether the national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU – Whether exemption from payment of the tax, introduced for certain categories of vehicle, is lawful – Possible application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that tax is arranged in such a way as to discourage the putting into circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States but without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑133/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/81/EC – Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings – Undertaking subject to the obligation of keeping separate accounts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 258 TFEU; Commission Directive 2005/81) (see paras 31, 39)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – Assessment of the expediency of bringing proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 32)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2005 L 312, p. 47).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
9

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 37 of Regulation No 1013/2006, which is also in the above Section 1, provide: ‘1. In the case of waste which is listed in Annex III or IIIA and the export of which is not prohibited under Article 36, the Commission shall, within 20 days of the entry into force of this Regulation, send a written request to each country to which the OECD Decision does not apply, seeking: (i) confirmation in writing that the waste may be exported from the [European Union] for recovery in that country, and (ii) an indication as to which control procedure, if any, would be followed in the country of destination. Each country to which the OECD Decision does not apply shall be given the following options: (a) a prohibition; or (b) a procedure of prior written notification and consent as described in Article 35; or (c) no control in the country of destination. 2. Before the date of application of this Regulation, the Commission shall adopt a Regulation taking into account all replies received pursuant to paragraph 1 …. If a country has not issued a confirmation as referred to in paragraph 1 or if a country for any reason has not been contacted, paragraph 1(b) shall apply. … 3. If a country indicates in its reply that certain shipments of waste are not subject to any control, Article 18 shall apply mutatis mutandis to such shipments.’
8

Paragraph 20(1) and (4) of Law No I of 1988 on road transport (a közúti közlekedésről szóló 1988. évi I. törvény) (‘the Law on road transport’), in the version in force (Magyar Közlöny 2006/1) at the time of the breach, states: ‘1. A fine is to be imposed on anyone who breaches the provisions of this Law or other legislation, that is to say: … (c) the provisions relating to driving time, break and rest period rules laid down in [Regulation No 561/2006], in this Law, and in the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR) ratified by Law No IX of 2001; (d) the provisions on the use of recording equipment and tachograph discs laid down in [Regulation No 3821/85] and in this Law; … 4. A fine of between HUF 50 000 and HUF 800 000 shall be imposed on anyone who breaches the provisions of subparagraph (1). The amount of the fines applicable for the breach of individual provisions shall be set out in a specific text. Where a number of persons are to be regarded as liable for the breach of the provisions referred to in subparagraph (1), the amount of the fine to be paid shall be divided between them on the basis of the respective liability of the persons concerned. …’
5

Article 15 of the WPPT reads: ‘(1) Performers and producers of phonograms shall enjoy the right to a single equitable remuneration for the direct or indirect use of phonograms published for commercial purposes for broadcasting or for any communication to the public. (2) Contracting Parties may establish in their national legislation that the single equitable remuneration shall be claimed from the user by the performer or by the producer of a phonogram or by both. Contracting Parties may enact national legislation that, in the absence of an agreement between the performer and the producer of a phonogram, sets the terms according to which performers and producers of phonograms shall share the single equitable remuneration. (3) Any Contracting Party may, in a notification deposited with the Director-General of WIPO, declare that it will apply the provisions of paragraph (1) only in respect of certain uses, or that it will limit their application in some other way, or that it will not apply these provisions at all. (4) For the purposes of this Article, phonograms made available to the public by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them shall be considered as if they had been published for commercial purposes.’
9

Article 6 of Directive 2002/58 provides: ‘1. Traffic data relating to subscribers and users processed and stored by the provider of a public communications network or publicly available electronic communications service must be erased or made anonymous when it is no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of this article and Article 15(1). 2. Traffic data necessary for the purposes of subscriber billing and interconnection payments may be processed. Such processing is permissible only up to the end of the period during which the bill may lawfully be challenged or payment pursued. 3. For the purpose of marketing electronic communications services or for the provision of value added services, the provider of a publicly available electronic communications service may process the data referred to in paragraph 1 to the extent and for the duration necessary for such services or marketing, if the subscriber or user to whom the data relate has given his/her consent. Users or subscribers shall be given the possibility to withdraw their consent for the processing of traffic data at any time. … 5. Processing of traffic data, in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, must be restricted to persons acting under the authority of providers of the public communications networks and publicly available electronic communications services handling billing or traffic management, customer enquiries, fraud detection, marketing electronic communications services or providing a value added service, and must be restricted to what is necessary for the purposes of such activities. 6. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 shall apply without prejudice to the possibility for competent bodies to be informed of traffic data in conformity with applicable legislation with a view to settling disputes, in particular interconnection or billing disputes.’
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 —

Commission v Sweden



(Case C-607/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations — Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of the directive

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. 23)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations — Obligation to ensure that those installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in the directive.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits issued in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;