ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑313/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery – 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. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (OJ 2004 L 146, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑517/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/98/EC – Re-use of public sector information – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt in the legislation of the Länder of Styria and Salzburg, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re‑use of public sector information, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2007 – Commission v Sweden

(Case C‑333/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Air transport – Denied boarding and cancellation or long delays of flights – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Adoption of sanctions

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. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take the measures necessary to comply with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) – Laying down of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to lay down the sanctions for infringements of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that directive;

Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Declares that by failing to take in the prescribed period all the legislative regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

29 November 2007

Case C-8/06 P

Anna Herrero Romeu

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 in Case T-298/02 Herrero Romeu v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑295 and II‑1349, seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Held : Appeal dismissed.

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – New submission of an argument – Admissibility – Limits

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))

2. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

1. It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, that, on appeal, an appellant may put forward any relevant argument, provided only that the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is not changed in the appeal.

2. Even if the distribution of responsibilities at intra-State level varies according to the institutional make-up of each State, that State must be considered to be a unitary subject of public international law. In the light of that approach, it is essential that the State be represented, vis-à-vis other States and international organisations, by a system of a single diplomatic representation, which reflects the unitary nature of the State concerned, at international level.

Although it is not essential, in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for ‘another State’, that he should have been employed by the central administration of that State, his functional integration within the permanent representation of that State constitutes a decisive factor.

In that respect, both those who work for a State through the intermediary of its central administration and those who work for an autonomous community through its administration must be considered to be in a situation of expatriation within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as long as they are formally integrated into the permanent representation of that State.

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State.
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. 9)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) of that directive;

2. The Portuguese Republic is ordered 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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt within the period prescribed the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain 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. 9)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (see para. 10)

Subject of the case

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, 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.
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. 10)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the Motor Insurance Agreement of 31 March 2004 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Self-employed commercial agents – Directive 86/653

(Council Directive 86/653, Arts 7(2), first indent, 10(1) and (2), and 11(1))

Summary

The first indent of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area does not have the right to a commission for transactions concluded by customers belonging to that area with a third party without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.

Although that provision merely refers to any ‘transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract’, without any other requirement than that those transactions have been entered into with a customer belonging to a geographical area or a group of customers for whom the commercial agent is responsible, it nevertheless follows from the combination of Article 10(1) and Article 10(2) of Directive 86/653 that the commercial agent’s right to commission arises either when the principal has or should have carried out his obligation, or when the third party to the agency contract, that is the customer, has or should have carried out his obligation. In each instance, the presence of the principal in the transactions for which the commercial agent can claim commission is indispensable. That is supported by the wording of Article 11(1) of that directive, according to which the commercial agent’s right to commission can be extinguished only if and to the extent that it is established that the contract between the third party and the principal will not be executed, and that fact is due to a reason for which the principal is not to blame.

It is for the national court to establish whether or not the evidence before it, assessed in the light of the aim of protecting the commercial agent which is one of the objectives of that directive and of the obligation on the principal to act dutifully and in good faith under Article 4 of that directive, allows it to establish the existence of such action, be that action of a legal nature, for example through the intermediary of a representative, or of a factual nature.

(see paras 16, 19-23, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds

(Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 11(1))

Summary

Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, must be interpreted as meaning that the sanction for which it provides is applicable against an exporter who has requested an export refund for goods, where those goods, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the exporter’s contracting partner, were not exported.

Should it prove to be the case that export of the goods on which a refund was granted did not take place, it is obvious that the exporter has requested a refund in excess of that applicable, since, in the absence of actual exportation, no refund is due.

In addition, it is not possible to add a new exception, based in particular on the absence of fault on the part of the exporter, to the exhaustive list contained in that provision. The fault or error of a contracting partner is an ordinary commercial risk and cannot be considered to be unforeseeable in the context of commercial transactions. The exporter is fully at liberty to select his trading partners and it is up to him to take the appropriate precautions, either by including the necessary clauses in the contracts which he concludes with them or by effecting appropriate insurance.

(see paras 25, 36-37, operative part)
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. 16)

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

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

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 10-11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 13-14)

3. 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. 15)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, 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.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Footwear with uppers of leather and textile materials – Classification under heading 6403 or under heading 6404 of the Combined Nomenclature

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, headings 6403 and 6404; Commission Regulation No 2388/2000)

2. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature – Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the Combined Nomenclature

(Council Regulation No 2658/87; Commission Regulation No 3800/92)

Summary

1. The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 2388/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a sandal such as that in question in the main proceedings, with an outer sole of rubber, whose upper is made up of two leather sections glued to the inner sole and linked to each other by leather fastening straps covered with Velcro strips, with the leather making up around 71% of the upper’s external surface area and the elastic textile material underneath the leather remaining exposed in places, falls within:

- heading 6404 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, fulfils the purpose of an upper, that is to say, provides sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal;

- heading 6403 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, does not fulfil the purpose of an upper, that is to say, it does not provide sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal.

It is for the national court to make the necessary findings in that regard.

(see paras 43, 48, operative part 1)

2. Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the Combined Nomenclature, inserted by Regulation No 3800/92 amending Regulation No 2658/87, is compatible with Note 4(a) to that chapter.

(see para. 57, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Directive 2003/96

(Council Directive 2003/96, Art. 14(1)(a))

Summary

Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, in so far as it provides for the exemption from taxation under that directive of energy products used to produce electricity, has direct effect in the sense that it may be relied upon by an individual before national courts – in relation to a period of time during which the Member State concerned was in default of its obligation to transpose that directive into its national law within the prescribed period – in a dispute between that individual and the customs authorities of that State, for the purpose of having national legislation which is incompatible with that provision disapplied and, consequently, obtaining a refund of tax which infringed that provision.

The obligation to exempt from taxation under that directive energy products intended to produce electricity is expressed in terms sufficiently precise and unconditional to confer on individuals the right to rely on it in proceedings before national courts with a view to contesting national rules that are incompatible with it. The fact that the introductory wording of Article 14(1) affords Member States a degree of latitude with regard to the conditions for ensuring the correct and straightforward application of the exemption does not affect the unconditional character of that exemption obligation.

The latter finding is not invalidated by the fact that Member States may, under the second sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, impose taxation on the products in question for reasons of environmental policy, since that is merely a potential limitation to the exemption rule and since a Member State which has not exercised that option cannot rely on its own failure to do so in order to refuse a taxpayer the benefit of an exemption which he may legitimately claim under Directive 2003/96.

(see paras 31-33, 39, operative part)