ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Measures for the establishment and proper functioning of the internal market in electricity – Directive 2003/54 – Third-party access to electricity transmission and distribution systems

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54, Art. 20)

Summary

Article 20 of Directive 2003/54 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92 is to be interpreted as defining the Member States’ obligations only in respect of the access and not the connection of third parties to the electricity transmission and distribution systems and as not laying down that the system of network access that the Member States are required to establish must allow an eligible customer to choose, at his discretion, the type of system to which he wishes to connect.

Article 20 must also be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down that an eligible customer’s equipment may be connected to a transmission system only where the distribution system operator refuses, on account of established technical or operating requirements, to connect to its system the equipment of the eligible customer which is on the territory included in its licence. It is, however, for national courts to verify that the implementation and application of that access system takes place in accordance with criteria which are objective and do not discriminate between the users of the transmission and distribution systems.

(see para. 49, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4))

Summary

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not precluded from refusing to recognise, in its territory, a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose right to drive was withdrawn, in the territory of the first Member State, even though that withdrawal was ordered after the issue of that driving licence, provided that the licence was obtained during a period in which a licence issued in the first Member State was suspended and both the suspension and the withdrawal are based on grounds existing at the date of issue of the second driving licence.

(see para. 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Dominant position – Copyright management organisation having a de facto monopoly – Collection of royalties corresponding to part of the revenue of commercial television channels which is proportionate overall to the quantity of musical works broadcast in the absence of other methods enabling the use of those works and the audience to be measured more precisely

(Art. 82 EC)

2. Competition – Dominant position – Copyright management organisation having a de facto monopoly – Collection of royalties calculated in a different manner according to whether the companies are commercial companies or public service undertakings

(Art. 82 EC)

Summary

1. Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a copyright management organisation with a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market does not abuse that position where, with respect to remuneration paid for the television broadcast of musical works protected by copyright, it applies to commercial television channels a remuneration model according to which the amount of the royalties corresponds partly to the revenue of those channels, provided that that part is proportionate overall to the quantity of musical works protected by copyright actually broadcast or likely to be broadcast, unless another method enables the use of those works and the audience to be identified more precisely without however resulting in a disproportionate increase in the costs incurred for the management of contracts and the supervision of the use of those works.

(see para. 41, operative part 1)

2. Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, by calculating the royalties with respect to remuneration paid for the broadcast of musical works protected by copyright in a different manner according to whether the companies concerned are commercial companies or public service undertakings, a copyright management organisation is likely to exploit in an abusive manner its dominant position within the meaning of that article if it applies with respect to those companies dissimilar conditions to equivalent services and if it places them as a result at a competitive disadvantage, unless such a practice may be objectively justified.

As regards the examination as to whether such a practice exists account must be taken, where appropriate, of the fact that, unlike commercial television companies, public service undertakings do not have either advertising revenue or revenue relating to subscription contracts and of the fact that the royalties paid by public service undertakings are collected without taking account of the quantity of musical works protected by copyright actually broadcast. Furthermore, it must also be ascertained whether commercial television companies are competitors of public service undertakings on the same market.

As regards the examination of any objective justification, such justification may arise, in particular, from the task and method of financing of public service undertakings.

(see paras 44-48, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Assessment on the date of the Commission’s decision

(Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4(1) and (5))

Summary

Article 4(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty, which provides that the Commission must examine a notification of a proposed aid scheme ‘as soon as it is received’, imposes merely an obligation of particular diligence on the Commission, and therefore is not a rule of application ratione temporis of the criteria for assessment of the compatibility of the notified proposed aid with the common market. Nor may such a rule be inferred from the second sentence of Article 4(5) of that regulation, which provides that the two-month period during which the Commission undertakes the preliminary examination of the notification begins on the day following the receipt of a complete notification.

By contrast, the question whether aid is State aid within the meaning of the Treaty must be determined on the basis of objective elements, which must be appraised on the date on which the Commission takes its decision. Accordingly, it is the appraisal of the situation carried out by the Commission on that date which is to be reviewed by the Community Courts.

Consequently, if the notification of proposed aid is an essential requirement of the control of that aid, it is nevertheless only a procedural obligation, intended to allow the Commission to ensure both preventive and effective control of the aid which Member States intend to grant to undertakings. It cannot therefore have the effect of setting the legal framework applicable to the aid notified. Thus, the notification by a Member State of aid or a proposed aid scheme does not give rise to a definitively-established legal situation which requires the Commission to rule on their compatibility with the common market by applying the rules in force at the date on which that notification took place. On the contrary, it is for the Commission to apply the rules in force at the time when it gives its decision, the only rules on the basis of which the lawfulness of the decision it takes in that regard falls to be assessed.

Where the legal rules under which a Member State notified proposed aid change before the Commission takes its decision, the Commission must, with a view to giving its decision, as it is obliged to do, on the basis of the new rules, ask the interested parties to express their views on the compatibility of that aid with those rules. The situation is different only if the new legal rules do not contain any substantial amendments in relation to those previously in force.

(see paras 49-50, 52-53, 56)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Grounds for revocation of the trade mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 10(1) and 12(1))

Summary

Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, where the proprietor of a mark affixes that mark to items that it gives, free of charge, to purchasers of its goods, it does not make genuine use of that mark in respect of the class covering those items.

In such a situation, those items are not distributed in any way with the aim of penetrating the market for goods in the same class. In those circumstances, affixing the mark to those items does not contribute to creating an outlet for those items or to distinguishing, in the interest of the customer, those items from the goods of other undertakings.

(see paras 21-22, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Art. 7(5))

2. Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1 and 8(2) and (4))

Summary

1. Article 7(5) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding a national of a Member State from holding simultaneously two valid driving licences, one of which is a Community licence and the other a driving licence issued by another Member State where both licences were obtained before the accession of the latter State to the European Union.

Although it is true that Article 7(5) affirms the single nature of a driving licence, that article does not prohibit a national of a Member State continuing to hold more than one valid licence when one of those licences was issued in a Member State prior to its accession in so far as that licence has not ceased to be valid. In such a situation, where two valid licences exist side by side, that provision does not therefore affect the validity of one of them. It does not introduce an order of priority of application and does not require either the automatic loss of the first licence or the nullity of the second.

(see paras 56-58, 60, operative part 1)

2. Article 1 and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State before the latter acceded to the Union where that licence was issued prior to a driving licence issued by the first Member State in which the second licence was withdrawn due to the holder’s unfitness to drive. The fact that such refusal occurs after the period during which no application could be made for the issue of a new driving licence is irrelevant in that regard.

If a national withdrawal measure could be sidestepped by relying on a driving licence issued earlier than the licence which was withdrawn on the ground of unfitness to drive without it being established that the person relying on the earlier licence is, on the date on which he relies on it, fit to drive in accordance with Directive 91/439, road traffic safety would be compromised.

Furthermore, it would be paradoxical to require a Member State to recognise the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State prior to a licence issued by the first Member State when the second licence has been withdrawn because of its holder’s unfitness to drive. If a national of a Member State holds a single driving licence issued in another Member State, the first Member State is entitled, under Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439, to apply its provisions on withdrawal, for example, on the ground of unfitness to drive.

(see paras 96-98, operative part 2)
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 paras 25, 54)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 29)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Production of evidence showing failure (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 32)

4. Environment – Urban waste-water treatment – Directive 91/271 – Implementation by Member States – Obligation to achieve a result – Failure to satisfy that obligation – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3 and 4) (see para. 55)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to provide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, the agglomerations of Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Costa de Aveiro, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde and Santa Cita with collection systems, and by failing to subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of that directive, the urban waste water from the agglomerations of Alverca, Bacio do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Carvoeiro, Costa de Aveiro, Costa Oeste, Covilhã, Lisbon, Matosinhos, Milfontes, Nazaré/Famalicão, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Franca de Xira and Vila Real de Santo António, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3))

Summary

Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark provides that ‘paragraph 1(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply if the trade mark has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested in consequence of the use which has been made of it’.

It is apparent from the very wording of that provision and more particularly from the use of the verbs in the past tense in the phrases ‘the mark has become’ and ‘in consequence of the use which has been made of it’ that the mark must, at the time of filing of the application for registration, already have acquired distinctive character through prior use.

That finding, which relates to the French version of Regulation No 40/94, is borne out by examination of the various other language versions such as, inter alia, the English, German, Italian and Dutch versions.

Furthermore, the development of the relevant legislation clearly indicates it was the intention of the Community legislature to grant protection as a Community trade mark only to those marks whose distinctive character had been acquired through use prior to the date of application for registration.

Furthermore, a literal interpretation of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 is the only one compatible with the logic of the system of absolute and relative grounds for refusal in regard to the registration of Community trade marks, according to which the date of filing of the application for registration determines the priority of one mark over another.

Moreover, a trade mark which is devoid of any distinctive character at the time when the application for registration is filed might serve as a basis for the application, in the context of opposition proceedings or an application for a declaration of invalidity, of a relative ground for refusal against a second mark whose filing date is after that of the first mark. Such a situation is particularly unacceptable when the second mark already has distinctive character at the time of filing whereas the first has not yet acquired it through use.

(see paras 41-44, 51-52)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark must, in relation to the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant elements.

In particular, in the context of examination of the likelihood of confusion, assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a complex trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole.

In that regard, the overall impression created in the mind of the relevant public by a complex trade mark may, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. However, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.

(see paras 60-62)

2. Although the possibility cannot be ruled out that the coexistence of two marks on a particular market might, together with other elements, contribute to diminishing the likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, between those marks on the part of the relevant public, certain conditions must be met. Thus, the absence of a likelihood of confusion may, in particular, be inferred from the ‘peaceful’ nature of the coexistence of the marks at issue on the market concerned.

(see para. 82)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age

(Council Directive 2000/78)

2. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of age – Prohibition – Duty of national courts

Summary

1. European Union law, more particularly the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that periods of employment completed by an employee before reaching the age of 25 are not taken into account in calculating the notice period for dismissal.

(see para. 43, operative part 1)

2. It is for the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, is complied with, disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national legislation, independently of whether it makes use of its entitlement, in the cases referred to in the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that principle. The optional nature of such a reference is not affected by the procedural conditions of national law under which a court may disapply a national provision which it considers to be contrary to the constitution.

(see paras 55-56, operative part 2)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑3/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/110/EC – Assistance in cases of transit – Removal by air – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Directive not sufficiently transposed without legislative action (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2003/110, Art. 5(2) (see paras 6-7)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implemention by the Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 11)

3. 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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26).

Operative part

By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, with the exception of Article 5(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder.

The action is dismissed in respect of the failure to transpose Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/110.
Declares that, by failing to communicate the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Sweden

(Case C‑257/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2004/17/EC – Coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors – 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. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p.1).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;