ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Community rules – Undertaking – Meaning

(Arts 81 EC and 82 EC)

2. Competition – Public undertakings and undertakings to which the Member States grant special or exclusive rights

(Arts 82 EC and 86 EC)

Summary

1. A legal person whose activities consist in organising sports competitions and in entering, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts designed to exploit those competitions commercially, and constitute for that entity a source of income, must be classified as an undertaking for the purposes of Community competition law. The fact that an economic activity has a connection with sport does not hinder the application of the rules of the Treaty, including those governing competition law.

That conclusion is not affected by the fact that the entity has the power to give its consent to applications for authorisation submitted to the public authorities to organise competitions, since it is necessary to distinguish the participation of that entity in the decision‑making process of those authorities and the economic activities in which it engages, such as the organisation and commercial exploitation of competitions. Nor does the fact that it does not seek to make a profit, where its offer of goods or services exists in competition with that of other operators, prevent that conclusion. In this respect, non‑profit‑making associations which offer goods or services on a given market may find themselves in competition with one another. The success or economic survival of such associations depends ultimately on their being able to impose, on the relevant market, their services to the detriment of those offered by the other operators.

(see paras 22-23, 26-28)

2. Articles 82 EC and 86 EC preclude a national rule which confers on a legal person, which organises sports competitions and enters, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, the power to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise such competitions, without that power being made subject to restrictions, obligations and review.

A system of undistorted competition, such as that provided for by the Treaty, can be guaranteed only if equality of opportunity is secured as between the various economic operators. To entrust a legal person, which itself organises and commercially exploits sports competitions, the task of giving the competent administration its consent to applications for authorisation to organise such competitions, is tantamount de facto to conferring upon it the power to designate the persons authorised to organise those competitions and to set the conditions in which those events are organised, thereby placing that entity at an obvious advantage over its competitors. Such a right may therefore lead the undertaking which possesses it to deny other operators access to the relevant market or to distort competition by favouring competitions which it organises or those in whose organisation it participates.

(see paras 51-53, 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. 13

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Partial, incorrect or non-existent transposition of Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) – Lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of those measures and that of the directive – Excessively wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to operating permits and the situations in which the conditions laid down under the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by transposing in part or incorrectly Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Employment in the public administration (Art. 39(4) EC) (see paras 16, 18, 21, operative part)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Protection of public policy, public security and public health (Art. 39(3) EC) (see para. 17, operative part)

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. 23)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 39 EC – National legislation reserving the posts of master and chief officer on all vessels flying the flag of that Member State to its nationals.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation the requirement that masters and chief officers on all vessels flying the Italian flag hold Italian nationality, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Case C-71/07 P

Franco Campoli

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Appeal — Officials — Remuneration — Pension — Application of the correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements established by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Objection of illegality’

Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 8 April 2008 I - 5890

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 July 2008 I - 5913

Summary of the Judgment

It is clear from Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that all appeals must seek the setting-aside in whole or in part of a judgment of the Court of First Instance, since the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment. Accordingly, a cross-appeal is inadmissible where it does not seek to have the judgment under appeal set aside, but rather a declaration that the principal appeal lodged by the appellant is inadmissible. (see paras 40-43)

A single correction coefficient per country applied to the pensions of officials can constitute an appropriate indicator to reflect, in a necessarily approximate way, the cost of living in a Member State. Given the necessarily approximate nature of a single correction coefficient per country, it must be considered that the goal of ensuring a certain parity of purchasing power among former officials residing in the various Member States has been attained, to the extent that the single correction coefficient is determined according to criteria which ensure that it is representative. The method of calculating the correction coefficients on the basis of the relationship between the cost of living in the Member State of residence and that in Belgium (‘the country method’) reflects the cost of living in a State in a manner that is at least as representative as the calculation of the calculation of coefficients on the basis of the relationship between the cost of living in the capital of the country of residence and that in Brussels (‘the ‘the capital method’’). Since the ‘country method’ is therefore an appropriate method of calculation for the purpose of ensuring, as far as possible, equality of purchasing power for all pensioners, the Community legislature did not infringe the principle of equal treatment when, in drawing up Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of Employment of other servants, it substituted the ‘country method’ for the ‘capital method’ for the purpose of determining correction coefficients in the transitional pension arrangements. (see paras 52, 54, 55)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23

(Council Directive 2001/23, Art. 3(1))

Summary

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses does not require, in the event of transfer of an undertaking, the preservation of the lease of commercial premises entered into by the transferor of the undertaking with a third party even though the termination of that lease is likely to entail the termination of contracts of employment transferred to the transferee.

It is true that the objective of that directive is to protect employees in the event of a change of employer, and that, if there is no automatic transfer of the lease, there is a risk that the transferee of the undertaking may be obliged to quit the premises, to cease business and consequently to terminate the contracts of employment of the employees concerned. However, the need to achieve that objective of protection of employees cannot permit the unequivocal wording of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23 to be ignored and the rights of third parties who are not connected with the transfer of the undertaking to be adversely affected, by imposing on them an obligation to accept an automatic transfer of the lease which is not clearly provided for in that directive.

(see paras 42-44, 47, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Optocouplers

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543; Commission Regulation No 1832/2002)

Summary

The Combined Nomenclature 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 1832/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that an optocoupler, regardless of whether or not it contains an amplifying circuit, falls within heading 8541. The tariff classification of optocouplers cannot vary according to the presence or absence of an integrated amplifying circuit since the latter serves only to ensure good transmission of signals and does not fundamentally alter the characteristics and properties of the optocoupler as a photosensitive semiconductor. That classification is therefore specific and appropriate.

(see paras 23-25, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds

–

Incorrect interpretation and application of provisions of a contract containing an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Council Decision 1999/169) (see paras 18-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T‑312/05 Commission v Alexiadou [2007] ECR II‑86, in which that Court dismissed an action based on an arbitration clause seeking an order that the defendant reimburse the amount of the advance paid by the Commission under a contract concerning a technological development programme relating to the production of water‑repellent leather (Contract No G1ST‑CT‑2002‑50227).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 July 2007 in Case T‑312/05 Commission v Alexiadou [2007], which was notified to the Commission on 18 July 2007;

2. Orders that the case be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Pleas which entail an analysis of legal acts which cannot themselves be contested before the Court of First Instance – Admissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

Summary

It is not contrary to Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – under which an appeal to the Court of Justice is to lie on the grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, or a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant, or the infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance – for the pleas put forward in support of the application to have the judgment of the Court of First Instance set aside to entail an analysis of the scope of legal acts which cannot themselves be contested before the Court of First Instance.

(see para. 40)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions 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 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Production of evidence showing failure – Incumbent on Member State concerned to refute evidence (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 17, 20)

2. Member States – Obligations – Supervisory tasks assigned to the Commission – Duty of the Member States – Cooperation in inquiries into whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations – Obligation to notify and supply information (Art. 10 EC, 211 EC and 226 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, Art. 28(3)) (see paras 17-19)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Article 2(k) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) – Definition of subscriber.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and in particular Article 2(k) thereof with reference to the definition of ‘subscriber’, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
An official who is retired on the ground of total permanent invalidity pursuant to Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations after lodging an action against his career development report nevertheless retains an interest in challenging that report.

In the first place, irrespective of its future usefulness, the career development report constitutes written, formal evidence of the quality of the work carried out by the official. Such an appraisal does not merely describe the tasks performed during the relevant period, but also includes an assessment of the personal qualities shown by the individual assessed in the conduct of his professional life. Therefore, every official has a right to have his work recognised by means of an appraisal carried out in a just and equitable manner. Consequently, in accordance with the right to effective judicial protection, officials must in any event be acknowledged as having the right to challenge a career development report on account of its content or because it has not been drawn up in accordance with the rules laid down by the Staff Regulations.

In the second place, while it is true that an official who is recognised by the Invalidity Committee as being in a state of total permanent incapacity is automatically retired pursuant to Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations, the situation of that official is distinct from that of an official who has reached the age of retirement, or who has resigned or been dismissed, because it is reversible. An official in a state of total permanent invalidity may one day resume his duties within a Community institution, given the wording of Article 16 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. In that regard, the general provision of Article 53 of the Staff Regulations must be read in conjunction with the specific provisions of Articles 13 to 15 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. The employment of an official who is declared to be in a state of invalidity is merely suspended, since the evolution of his position within the institutions is subject to the continued existence of the conditions which justified that invalidity, which can be reviewed at regular intervals.

Given that he may be reinstated in the institutions, an official who is in a state of total permanent invalidity has a right comparable to that of a serving official to have his career development report drawn up fairly, objectively and in accordance with normal reporting standards. In the event of reinstatement, that report would be useful for the official’s development within his service or the Community institutions. It would constitute tangible, formal evidence of his ability and experience within the institution, upon which he would be able to rely. It would also enable superiors to compare the merits of candidates for possible promotion or transfer.

(see paras 44-51)
Case C-339/07

Christopher Seagon, in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH

v

Deko Marty Belgium NV

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

‛Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Court with jurisdiction’

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 16 October 2008 I ‐ 769

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 12 February 2009 I ‐ 791

Summary of the Judgment

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation No 1346/2000

(Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Arts 3(1), 16 and 25, and Recitals 2, 4, 6 and 8)

Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose registered office is in another Member State.

Such an interpretation results from the effectiveness of that regulation and the intention of the legislature to limit that regulation to the provisions which govern jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings and judgments which are delivered directly on the basis of insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with such proceedings.

(see paras 20, 21, 28, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on animal health – Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat – Directive 85/73

(Council Directive 85/73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, Annex A, Chapter I, points 4(a) and (b))

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on animal health – Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat – Directive 85/73

(Council Directive 85/73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, Annex A, Chapter I, points 4(a) and (b))

Summary

1. Point 4(a) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662, 90/425, 90/675 and 91/496, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit Member States to deviate from the fee structure laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A and charge a fee the scale of which varies according to the size of establishments and diminishes according to the number of animals slaughtered per animal type.

Point 4(b) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not required to comply with the fee structure laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A and may charge a fee the scale of which varies according to the size of an establishment and the number of animals slaughtered per animal type, where it is established that those factors have an actual effect on the actual costs incurred in carrying out the veterinary inspections and controls required by the relevant provisions of Community law.

(see para. 24, operative part 1)

2. Point 4(a) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662, 90/425, 90/675 and 91/496, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may charge, in respect of inspections of animals which, at the request of the owner, are slaughtered outside normal slaughtering hours, an ‘additional fee on a percentage basis’ on top of the fee normally charged for inspections of animals when that increase represents a standard value which reflects the additional costs to be covered.

Point 4(b) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may charge, in respect of inspections of animals which, at the request of the owner, are slaughtered outside normal slaughtering hours, an ‘additional fee on a percentage basis’ on top of the fee normally charged for inspections of animals when that increase reflects the additional actual costs.

(see para. 37, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Art. 43 EC and 56 EC) (see para. 22)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Tax legislation – Corporation tax (Art. 43 EC and 56 EC; EEA Agreement, Arts 31 and 40) (see paras 25-28, operative part)

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation (Art. 43 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 40) (see paras 39-43, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC – National rules providing for tax exemption for dividends distributed by national companies but not for dividends distributed by companies whose seat is in another Member State.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than that applied to domestic dividends, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding articles of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 40 thereof;

Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of the Income Tax Code (Law 2238/1994, as amended by Law 3296/2004), by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.