ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Impossibility of relying on pleas which were withdrawn at first instance or of a finding of inadmissibility which was not itself contested

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

3. Competition – Dominant position – Abuse – Practice of charging prices lower than a certain level of costs

(Art. 82 EC)

Summary

1. The requirement that the Court of First Instance give reasons for its decisions cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by the applicant, particularly if the argument was not sufficiently clear and precise and was not adequately supported by evidence.

(see paras 30, 117)

2. In an appeal, the appellant may not rely on pleas in law declared inadmissible by that Court, where the finding that they are inadmissible is not contested.

(see para. 93)

3. The possibility of recoupment of losses suffered by the application, by an undertaking in a dominant position, of prices lower than a certain level of costs does not constitute a necessary precondition to establishing that such a pricing policy is abusive. That does not preclude the Commission from finding such a possibility of recoupment of losses to be a relevant factor in assessing whether or not the practice concerned is abusive, in that it may, for example where prices lower than average variable costs are applied, assist in excluding economic justifications other than the elimination of a competitor, or, where prices below average total costs but above average variable costs are applied, assist in establishing that a plan to eliminate a competitor exists. Moreover, the lack of any possibility of recoupment of losses is not sufficient to prevent the undertaking concerned reinforcing its dominant position, in particular, following the withdrawal from the market of one or a number of its competitors, so that the degree of competition existing on the market, already weakened precisely because of the presence of the undertaking concerned, is further reduced and customers suffer loss as a result of the limitation of the choices available to them.

(see paras 110-112)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46

(European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46, Art. 12(a))

Summary

The right to privacy, set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 95/46 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, means that the data subject may be certain that his personal data are processed in a correct and lawful manner, that is to say, in particular, that the basic data regarding him are accurate and that they are disclosed to authorised recipients. As is stated in recital 41 in the preamble to the directive, in order to carry out the necessary checks, the data subject must have a right of access to the data relating to him which are being processed.

Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 requires Member States to ensure a right of access to information on the recipients or categories of recipient of personal data and on the content of the data disclosed not only in respect of the present but also in respect of the past. It is for Member States to fix a time-limit for storage of that information and to provide for access to that information which constitutes a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the data subject in protecting his privacy, in particular by way of his rights to object and to bring legal proceedings and, on the other, the burden which the obligation to store that information represents for the controller.

Rules limiting the storage of information on the recipients or categories of recipient of personal data and on the content of the data disclosed to a period of one year and correspondingly limiting access to that information, while basic data is stored for a much longer period, do not constitute a fair balance of the interest and obligation at issue, unless it can be shown that longer storage of that information would constitute an excessive burden on the controller. It is, however, for national courts to make the determinations necessary.

(see paras 49, 70, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Obligations of Member States during the period prescribed for transposition

(Arts 10, second para, EC and 249, third para., EC)

3. Approximation of laws – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Directive 2005/29

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29)

Summary

1. Not only the national provisions specifically intended to transpose a directive but also, from the date of that directive’s entry into force, the pre-existing national provisions capable of ensuring that the national law is consistent with it must be considered to fall within the scope of that directive.

(see para. 35)

2. During the period prescribed for transposition of a directive, the Member States to which it is addressed must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by that directive.

All the authorities of the Member States concerned, including the national courts, have such an obligation to refrain from taking measures. It follows that, from the date upon which a directive has entered into force, the courts of the Member States must refrain as far as possible from interpreting domestic law in a manner which might seriously compromise, after the period for transposition has expired, attainment of the objective pursued by that directive.

(see paras 38-39)

3. Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Directives 84/450, 97/7, 98/27 and 2002/65 and Regulation No 2006/2004 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with certain exceptions, and without taking account of the specific circumstances – therefore generally and as a preventative measure – imposes a general prohibition of combined offers made by a vendor to a consumer.

That legislation lays down the principle that combined offers are prohibited, notwithstanding the fact that such practices are not referred to in Annex I to the Directive, which annex exhaustively lists the only commercial practices which are prohibited in all circumstances and accordingly do not have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. By operating in that manner, that legislation runs counter to the content of Article 4 of the Directive, which expressly prohibits Member States from maintaining or adopting more restrictive national measures, even where such measures are designed to ensure a higher level of consumer protection.

(see paras 60-61, 63, 68, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Direct support schemes – Common rules

(Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 5 and Annex IV)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Direct support schemes – Common rules

(Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 5 and Annex IV)

Summary

1. A Member State may include requirements relating to the maintenance of visible public rights of way in its standards for good agricultural and environmental condition under Article 5 of and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, inasmuch as those requirements contribute to the retention of those rights of way as landscape features or, as the case may be, to the avoidance of the deterioration of habitats.

It follows from the above that an obligation to maintain visible public rights of way may, even if it does not pursue an agricultural objective but concerns the environment, constitute a minimum requirement relating to good agricultural and environmental condition inasmuch as it forms part of the framework of rules in Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 which relate to the retention of landscape features.

(see paras 32, 46)

2. Where the constitutional system of a Member State provides that devolved administrations are to have legislative competence, the mere adoption by those administrations of different standards for good agricultural and environmental condition under Article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 does not constitute discrimination contrary to Community law.

Each Member State is free to allocate powers internally and to implement Community acts which are not directly applicable by means of measures adopted by regional or local authorities, provided that that allocation of powers enables the Community legal measures in question to be implemented correctly.

(see paras 50, 58)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Treatment of urban waste water – Directive 91/271

(Art. 174(2), EC; Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3(1), second para., and 5(2))

2. Environment – Treatment of urban waste water – Directive 91/271

(Council Directive 91/271, Art. 5(2) and (3), and Annexes I.B(3) and II.A(a), second para.)

3. Environment – Treatment of urban waste water – Directive 91/271

(Council Directive 91/271, Art. 5(5))

Summary

1. It is apparent from Article 5(2) of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Directive 98/15, that all urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent which discharges into a sensitive area was to be subject, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, to more stringent treatment than that referred to in Article 4 of that directive. In this respect, it does not matter whether the waste water discharges directly or indirectly into a sensitive area. This is in keeping with the high level of protection provided for by Community policy on the environment under Article 174(2) EC.

(see paras 29-30)

2. Under Article 5(3), in conjunction with Annex I.B(3), of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste‑water treatment, as amended by Directive 98/15, the treatment provided for in Article 5(2) of that directive is more stringent than that described in Article 4 of that directive and covers urban waste water entering collecting systems and from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent. That treatment means, inter alia, that discharges into areas sensitive to eutrophication must satisfy the requirements shown in Table 2 of that annex, subject, however, to the provisions of the second paragraph of Annex II.A(a) to that directive, which provide that, as regards large agglomerations, the removal of phosphorus and/or nitrogen should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication.

(see paras 36-37)

3. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste‑water treatment, as amended by Directive 98/15, the obligation to reduce the nitrogen load depends on the extent to which discharges from urban waste water treatment plants situated in the catchment areas of sensitive areas contribute to the pollution of those areas. Furthermore, whether direct or indirect, discharges from urban waste water treatment plants situated in the same catchment area of a sensitive area are subject, by reason of Article 5(5) of that directive, to the requirements applicable to sensitive areas only to the extent that those discharges contribute to the pollution of that area. Thus, there must be a causal link between those discharges and the pollution of the sensitive areas.

(see paras 43-47)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Possible for the Commission to base its decision on the information available

(Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 13(1) and 14(1))

Summary

Article 13(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 relating to the application of Article 88 EC empowers the Commission, once it finds that aid has been granted or altered without notification, to adopt a decision on whether the aid is compatible or not with the common market on the basis of the information available, when it is faced with a Member State which does not fulfil its duty to cooperate and has not provided the Commission with the information requested. Furthermore, if appropriate, such a decision may, on the conditions laid down in Article 14 of that regulation, call for the recovery of the amount of the aid which has already been paid.

However, that opportunity afforded the Commission cannot be interpreted as releasing that institution entirely from the obligation to base its decisions on reliable and coherent evidence to support the conclusions which it arrives at. The Commission is, at the very least, required to ensure that the information at its disposal, even if incomplete and fragmented, constitutes a sufficient basis on which to conclude that an undertaking has benefited from an advantage amounting to State aid.

Such considerations are even more relevant when the Commission orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiary, the very aim of such reimbursement being to eliminate the distortion of competition brought about by a certain competitive advantage and, thus, to re-establish the status quo before the aid was granted.

Therefore, the Commission cannot assume that an undertaking has benefited from an advantage constituting State aid solely on the basis of a negative presumption, based on a lack of information enabling the contrary to be found, if there is no other evidence capable of positively establishing the actual existence of such an advantage.

(see paras 54-58)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation No 1346/2000 – Recognition of insolvency proceedings opened by a court of a Member State – Judgment opening insolvency proceedings

(Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Arts 3, 4, 5, 10, 16, 17, 25 and 26)

Summary

Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, after the main insolvency proceedings have been opened in the Member State where an undertaking has its principal place of business, the competent authorities of another Member State, in which that undertaking engages in construction work through a branch and in which no secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened, are required, subject to the grounds for refusal derived from Articles 25(3) and 26 of that regulation, to recognise and enforce all judgments relating to the main insolvency proceedings and, therefore, are not entitled to order, pursuant to the legislation of that other Member State, enforcement measures relating to the assets of the debtor declared insolvent that are situated in its territory when the legislation of the State of the opening of proceedings does not so permit and the conditions to which application of Articles 5 and 10 of the regulation is subject are not met.

Subject to that proviso, because of the universal effect which all main insolvency proceedings must be accorded, insolvency proceedings opened in a Member State encompass all of the debtor’s assets, including those situated in another Member State, and the law of the State of the opening of proceedings determines not only the opening of insolvency proceedings but also their course and closure. On that basis, the law of the State of the opening of proceedings is required to govern the treatment of assets situated in other Member States and the effects of the insolvency proceedings on the measures to which those assets are liable to be subject.

(see paras 43, 46-47, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 25 October 2007 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑114/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Community code relating to medicinal products for human use – Directive 2004/24/EC – Traditional herbal medicinal products – 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. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, 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 (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85).

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 2004/24/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 Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑50/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/24/EC – Pharmaceutical specialities – Traditional herbal medicinal products – Community code – Medicinal products for human use – 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. 9)

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

The Court

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.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑85/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/60/EC – Articles 5(1) and 15(2) – Community action in the field of water policy – River basin district – Summary report and analyses – Communication thereof – None

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 – 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

The Court:

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;
Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all 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 Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 –

Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑340/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/73/EC – Equal treatment for men and women – Access to employment, vocational training and promotion – Working conditions – 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 take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having adopted within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑69/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/35/EC – Environment – Public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes – 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. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement, within the prescribed period, the 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 (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to implement 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 Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the directive;