ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 – Blom v Council and Commission

(Case C‑344/06 P)

Appeal – Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Milk – Additional levy – Reference quantity – Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking – SLOM 1983 producers – Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 857/84) (see paras 41-43)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk (Council Regulation No 857/84) (see paras 48-49, 51)

3. 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 CE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 58)

4. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 70)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulations No 2187/93 and No 2330/98) (see paras 50-51, 79-80, 92, 94, 104)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council and Commission by which the Court dismissed an application for compensation under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s being prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the appeal;
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)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (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 Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the French Republic 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. 13

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) – Failure to submit summary reports on the analyses required under Article 5 as regards certain river basin districts – Failure to carry out the analyses and studies provided for in Article 5(1) of that directive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in respect of the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio and a part of the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps and the Northern, Central and Southern Apennines, by failing to submit a summary report on the analyses required under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as provided for in Article 15(2) thereof, and by failing to carry out the analyses and the study referred to in Article 5(1) thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 2201/2003 – Jurisdiction in divorce proceedings

(Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Arts 3(1)(a), 6, 7(1) and 17)

Summary

Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility are to be interpreted as meaning that where, in divorce proceedings, a respondent is not habitually resident in a Member State and is not a national of a Member State, the courts of a Member State cannot base their jurisdiction to hear the petition on their national law, if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction under Article 3 of that regulation.

According to the clear wording of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, it is only where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 3 to 5 of the regulation that jurisdiction is to be governed, in each Member State, by the laws of that State. Moreover, according to Article 17 of Regulation No 2201/2003, where a court of one Member State is seised of a case over which it has no jurisdiction under that regulation and a court of another Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to that regulation, it is to declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction.

That interpretation is not affected by Article 6 of Regulation No 2201/2003, since the application of Articles 7(1) and 17 of that regulation depends not upon the position of the respondent, but solely on the question whether the court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 3 to 5 of the regulation, the objective of which is to lay down uniform conflict of law rules for divorce in order to ensure a free movement of persons which is as wide as possible. Consequently, Regulation No 2201/2003 applies also to nationals of non‑Member States whose links with the territory of a Member State are sufficiently close, in keeping with the grounds of jurisdiction laid down in that regulation, grounds which are based on the rule that there must be a real link between the party concerned and the Member State exercising jurisdiction.

(see paras 18-19, 21, 25-26, 28, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 19(2))

Summary

Article 19(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is to be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ does not include vehicles which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view to leasing them and subsequently selling them upon termination of the respective leasing contracts, as the sale of such vehicles at the end of those contracts is an integral part of the usual business activities of that undertaking.

For the party concerned, the purchase and subsequent sale of such goods means that it has to use goods and services for mixed use on an everyday basis. Since that sale is part of the normal taxable activities of the taxable person, the turnover attributable to it must be taken into account in the calculation of the deductible proportion in order for that proportion to reflect as accurately as possible the division of use, in respect of those activities, of the goods and services put to mixed use, since otherwise there would be a failure to have regard to the objective of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax. Therefore, if the sale, on termination of the leasing contracts, of the vehicles covered by those contracts is in the nature of a normal activity for the taxable person concerned, who carries out that activity by way of business and as a matter of course, it would be contrary to that objective of neutrality if that taxable person were not actually relieved of the portion of value added tax imposed on the overall costs incurred to effect that sale and thus to carry on its usual taxable business activity.

(see paras 25-26, 36, 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. 226 EC) (see para. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) – Failure to submit summary reports of the analyses required under Article 5 as regards certain river basin districts – Failure to undertake the analyses and reviews required by Article 5(1) of the directive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that, for each river basin district falling within its territory, an analysis of its characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and an economic analysis of water use, are undertaken in accordance with the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the directive and, by failing to submit summary reports of the analyses required by that provision, it has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2) of the directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay 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. 226 EC) (see para. 31)

2. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on difficulties in application – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 33)

3. Environment – Urban waste water treatment – Directive 91/271 – Exceptions (Council Directive 91/271; Commission Decision 2001/720, Arts 2, 3 and 5) (see paras 41, 47-56)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Commission Decision of 8 October 2001 granting Portugal a derogation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration of the Estoril coast (OJ 2001 L 269, p. 14).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision 2001/720/EC of 8 October 2001 granting Portugal a derogation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, by

– failing to subject, during the bathing season, the urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, prior to discharge into the sea, to at least advanced primary treatment and to a disinfection system in accordance with Article 2 of that decision,

– failing to subject, outside the bathing season, the urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, prior to discharge, to at least primary treatment in accordance with Article 3 of that decision, and

– allowing the discharge of urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast to produce adverse effects on the environment;

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

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 18(4))

Summary

Article 18(4) of Sixth VAT Directive 77/338 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation which, in order to allow the investigations required to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, extends from 60 to 180 days, as from the date of submission of the taxable person’s value added tax return, the period available to the national tax office for repayment of excess value added tax to a category of taxable persons unless those persons lodge a security deposit of a high set amount.

National legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess value added tax which are more onerous for one category of taxable persons because of a presumed risk of evasion, without making any provision for the taxable person to demonstrate the absence of tax evasion or avoidance in order to take advantage of less restrictive conditions, is not a means proportionate to the objective of combating tax evasion and avoidance and has a disproportionate effect on the objectives and principles of the Sixth Directive.

Similarly, such provisions do not appear to be in conformity with the condition that repayment of the excess tax must be made within a reasonable time. The period for repayment of 180 days laid down for those categorised as new taxable persons, namely those who commenced their activities within less than 12 months is, on the one hand, six times longer than the one month tax accounting period and, on the other hand, three times longer than the period applied to other taxable persons, without any explanation why it is necessary, in order to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, to establish a difference in treatment of such a scale.

The possibility offered to new taxable persons to lodge a security deposit in order to take advantage of the normal period of 60 days cannot affect those considerations, given that the security deposit is not proportionate either to the amount of the excess tax to be repaid or to the economic size of the taxable person. In particular, the lodging of such a security deposit is likely to entail a not inconsiderable financial risk for undertakings which have just commenced their activities and may, consequently, lack significant resources. In reality, the effect of the obligation to put in place such a security deposit, in order to be able to take advantage of the period which ordinarily applies, is only to replace the financial burden associated with the fact that the amount of the excess tax is tied up for a period of 180 days with the burden consequent on the amount of the security deposit being tied up.

(see paras 24, 26-27, 29-33, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Manifestly irrelevant questions

(Art. 234 EC; Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I)

2. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Camcorders with DV-in function capable of being activated after customs clearance

3. Common Customs Tariff – Interpretation

Summary

1. Where the national court has before it an application for remission of customs duty based on Article 239(1) of the Customs Code and must, on that basis, look for elements likely to constitute a specific circumstance arising from facts which imply neither deception nor obvious negligence on the part of the importer, the question of the legal scope of the explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff is relevant. The question referred, which concerns the legal effect of amendments to those explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature, is thus admissible.

(see paras 28, 32)

2. A camcorder may be classified under subheading 8525 40 99 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff only if the function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone (DV-in function) is active at the time of customs clearance or if, even though the manufacturer did not intend to promote that characteristic, that function may be activated subsequently by simple modification of the apparatus by a user who does not have special skills, without modification of the camcorder’s hardware. Where the camcorder is activated subsequently, it is also necessary, first, that, once activated, it functions in a manner similar to that of another camcorder whose DV-in function is active at the time of customs clearance and, second, that it functions independently. The existence of those conditions must be capable of being ascertained at the time of customs clearance. It is for the national court to establish whether those conditions are fulfilled. If those conditions are not fulfilled the camcorder must be classified under subheading 8525 40 91 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(see paras 25-27, operative part 1)

3. The explanatory notes relating to subheading 8525 40 99, of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I of Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, published on 6 July 2001 and 23 October 2002, are interpretative in character and do not have legally binding force. They are in accordance with the wording of the Combined Nomenclature and do not alter its scope. It follows that the adoption of a new classification regulation, as opposed to interpreting the existing regulation, was not necessary.

(see paras 28, 37, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Ambient air quality assessment and management – Directive 96/62

(Council Directive 96/62, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Art. 7(3))

2. Environment – Ambient air quality assessment and management – Directive 96/62

(Council Directive 96/62, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Art. 7(3))

Summary

1. Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a risk that the emission limit values in respect of particulate matter PM10 or alert thresholds may be exceeded, persons directly concerned must be in a position to require the competent national authorities to draw up an action plan, even though, under national law, those persons may have other courses of action available to them for requiring those authorities to take measures to combat atmospheric pollution.

(see para. 42, operative part 1)

2. In the application of Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, the Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the national courts, to take such measures – in the context of an action plan and in the short term – as are capable of reducing to a minimum the risk that the emission limit values in respect of particulate matter PM10 or alert thresholds may be exceeded and of ensuring a gradual return to a level below those values or thresholds, taking into account the factual circumstances and all opposing interests.

(see para. 47, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Measures intended to achieve the single market – Introduction of new national provisions in derogation

(Art. 95(5) EC)

2. Environment – Formulation of Community policy – Obligation to take account of the available scientific and technical data

(Arts 95(5) and (6) EC and 174(3) EC)

Summary

1. Article 95(5) EC requires that the introduction of derogating national provisions be based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment made necessary by reason of a problem specific to the Member State concerned arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, and that the proposed provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them be notified to the Commission. Those conditions are cumulative in nature and must therefore all be satisfied if the derogating national provisions are not to be rejected by the Commission

To determine whether those conditions are, in fact, satisfied, which can, depending on the circumstances, necessitate complex technical evaluations, the Commission has a wide discretion. The exercise of that discretion is not, however, excluded from review by the Court. Not only must the Community judicature establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it

Moreover, where a Community institution has a wide discretion, the review of observance of guarantees conferred by the Community legal order in administrative procedures is of fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular for the competent institution, the obligations to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant elements of the individual case and to give an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision. The review of observance of those procedural guarantees is even more important in the procedure under Article 95(5) EC since the right to be heard does not apply to it

(see paras 52-57)

2. Under the first indent of Article 174(3) EC, the Commission is, as a rule, obliged to take account, in its decisions in the field of the environment, of all available new scientific and technical data. That obligation applies, particularly, to the procedure under Article 95(5) and (6) EC, for which taking account of new data forms the very foundation.

(see para. 61)