ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, 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

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 8-9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Entitlement to paid annual leave

(European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

Summary

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or collective agreements which provide that a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, after his recovery, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period.

The purpose of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to enable the worker to rest and to enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure. That purpose thus differs from that of entitlement to sick leave, the latter being given to the worker so that he can recover from being ill. It follows, in particular, from that stated purpose of the entitlement to paid annual leave that a worker who is on sick leave during a period of previously scheduled annual leave has the right, on his request and in order that he may actually use his annual leave, to take that leave during a period which does not coincide with the period of sick leave. The scheduling of that new period of annual leave, corresponding to the duration of the overlap between the period of annual leave originally scheduled and the sick leave, is subject to the rules and procedures of national law which are applicable to the scheduling of workers’ leave, taking into account the various interests involved, including overriding reasons relating to the interests of the undertaking. If such interests preclude acceptance of the worker’s request for a new period of annual leave, the employer is obliged to grant the worker a different period of annual leave proposed by him which is compatible with those interests, without excluding in advance the possibility that that period may fall outside the reference period for the annual leave in question.

(see paras 21-23, 26, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2005/14/EC;

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

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Posting of workers who are nationals of non-member States by an undertaking in another Member State

(Art. 49 EC)

Summary

The requirement by a Member State that a service provider should furnish a simple prior declaration certifying that the situation of the workers posted to that State who are nationals of non-member States is lawful, particularly in the light of the requirements of residence, work visas and social security cover in the Member State where that provider employs them, is a measure which, in principle, does not go beyond what is necessary in order to prevent the abuse to which the implementation of the freedom to provide services may give rise.

(see paras 16, 18)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – International convention not binding on the Community – Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention)

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 2027/97 – Air carrier liability in the event of accidents – Implementing procedures

(Council Regulation No 2027/97)

Summary

1. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, does not form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC.

The Community has not assumed all the powers previously exercised by the Member States in the field to which the Warsaw Convention applies. In the absence of a full transfer of the powers previously exercised by the Member States to the Community, the latter cannot, simply because at the material time all those States were parties to the Warsaw Convention, be bound by the rules set out therein, which it has not itself approved.

(see paras 32-34, operative part 1)

2. Regulation No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents must be interpreted as not precluding the application of Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, to a situation in which a passenger seeks to establish the liability of the air carrier on account of harm suffered by him when flying between Member States of the European Community.

On the other hand, it is clear from recitals 2 and 4 in the preamble to Regulation No 2027/97 and Article 2(2) thereof, that where the regulation does not preclude the application of the Warsaw Convention in order to raise the level of protection of passengers, that protection involves the regulation and the system established by the convention being complementary and equivalent to one another. Since Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention simply governs a procedural rule for bringing an action for damages against an air carrier in the event of an accident, it is not in the category of provisions whose application the Community legislature has sought to preclude.

(see paras 43-45, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Concession to operate a public service – Public-private partnership

(Arts 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC)

Summary

Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC do not preclude the direct award of a public service which entails the prior execution of certain works to a semi-public company formed specifically for the purpose of providing that service and possessing a single corporate purpose, the private participant in the company being selected by means of a public and open procedure after verification of the financial, technical, operational and management requirements specific to the service to be performed and of the characteristics of the tender with regard to the service to be delivered, provided that the tendering procedure in question is consistent with the principles of free competition, transparency and equal treatment laid down by the Treaty with regard to concessions.

The use of a double procedure for, first, the selection of the private participant in the semi-private company and, second, the award of the concession to that company, would be liable to deter private entities and public authorities from forming institutionalised public-private partnerships, on account of the length of time involved in implementing such procedures and the legal uncertainty attaching to the award of the concession to the previously selected private participant.

While the absence of a competitive tendering procedure in connection with the award of services would appear to be irreconcilable with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, that situation may be rectified by selecting the private participant in accordance with those requirements and choosing appropriate criteria for the selection of the private participant, since the tenderers must provide evidence not only of their capacity to become a shareholder but, primarily, of their technical capacity to provide the service and the economic and other advantages which their tender brings.

In so far as the criteria for the selection of the private participant are based not only on its capital contribution but also the participant’s technical capacity and the characteristics of its tender with regard to the particular services to be provided and the participant is entrusted with the operation of the service in question and thus with the management of the service, the selection of the concessionaire can be regarded as an indirect result of the selection of that participant which was made at the conclusion of a procedure conducted in accordance with the principles of Community law, so that a second competitive tendering procedure for the selection of the concessionaire is unnecessary.

(see paras 59-61, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Medical devices – Directive 93/42

(Council Directive 93/42, as amended by European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 4(1) and 17)

Summary

Article 4(1) of Directive 93/42 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the commercial exportation of dental amalgams containing mercury and bearing the ‘CE’ marking provided for in Article 17 of that directive is prohibited on grounds relating to protection of the environment and of health.

(see para. 33, 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. 28)

2. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Control measures – Obligations of the Member States (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulations No 2241/87, Art. 1(1), and No 2847/93, Arts 1, 2 and 31(1) and (2)) (see paras 30-33)

3. 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 45-46)

4. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Control measures – Member States’ duty to take penal or administrative action (Council Regulations No 2241/87, Art. 1(2), and No 2847/93, Art. 31(1) and (2)) (see paras 59-64, 70-72, 77)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1) and of Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) – Inspection and control of fishing vessels and their activities – Measures to be taken in the case of non-compliance with the rules in force – Provisions relating to the retention on board or use of driftnets.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to control, inspect and survey in a satisfactory manner fishing activities within its territory and within the waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, in particular with regard to compliance with the provisions governing the retention on board and use of driftnets, and by not ensuring in a satisfactory manner that appropriate measures are taken against those responsible for infringements of the Community rules on the retention on board and use of driftnets, in particular by the imposition of dissuasive penalties on those persons, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by adopting Article 49 of Statutory Instrument No 329 of 2006 and Article 51 of Statutory Instrument No 50 of 2007, Ireland established the rules governing the notification of contracting authorities’ and entities’ award decisions and their reasoning to tenderers in such a way that by the time that tenderers are fully informed of the reasons for the rejection of their offer, the standstill period preceding the conclusion of the contract may already have expired, and that, by so doing, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Posts in the public service (Art. 39(4) EC) (see paras 30-31, 33-34 and operative part)

2. 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. 35)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 39 of the EC Treaty – National legislation which reserves for Greek nationals access to the posts of captain and officer (chief mate) on all commercial and fishing vessels flying the Greek flag.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring in its legislation Greek nationality for access to the posts of captain and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the Greek flag, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco

(Council Directive 95/59, as amended by Directive 2002/10, Art. 9(1))

2. Member States – Obligations – Supervisory tasks assigned to the Commission – Duty of the Member States

(Art. 10 EC and 226 EC)

Summary

1. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Directive 2002/10, where it imposes minimum retail prices for cigarettes, and where that system does not make it possible to ensure, in any event, that the minimum price imposed does not impair the competitive advantage which could result for some producers and importers of tobacco products from lower cost prices. Such a system, which furthermore fixes the minimum price by reference to the weighted average price on the market for each category of cigarettes, is likely to eliminate price differences between competing products and to cause prices to converge around the price of the most expensive product. That system therefore undermines the freedom of producers and importers to determine their maximum retail selling price, guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59.

The World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control cannot affect the compatibility or otherwise of such a system with Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59 since that convention imposes no actual obligation on the Contracting Parties with regard to price policies for tobacco products, and merely describes possible approaches by which to take account of national health objectives concerning tobacco control. Article 6(2) of the convention provides only that the Contracting Parties are to adopt or maintain measures which ‘may include’ implementing tax policies and, ‘where appropriate’, price policies, concerning tobacco products.

Member States may not rely on Article 30 EC in order to justify an infringement of Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59 with reference to the objective of protection of health and life of humans. Article 30 EC cannot be understood as authorising measures other than the quantitative restrictions on imports and exports and the measures having equivalent effect envisaged by Articles 28 EC and 29 EC.

The fact remains that Directive 95/59 does not prevent Member States from taking measures to combat smoking, which forms part of the objective of protecting public health.

(see paras 45-46, 50-51, 57, operative part 1)

2. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC by not providing the information required by the European Commission in order to enable it to fulfil its task of monitoring compliance with Directive 95/59 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Directive 2002/10/EC.

(see para. 62, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances – Directive 96/82

(Council Directive 96/82, Art. 11(1)(c))

Summary

The drawing-up of external emergency plans, referred to in Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82, on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, forms part of a several-stage process involving, first, the drawing‑up of internal emergency plans by the operators of establishments where dangerous substances are present in significant quantities and the supply of the necessary information to the competent authorities, second, the drawing‑up of external emergency plans by those authorities and, third, the review and, where necessary, the revision and updating of the internal and external emergency plans by the operators and the competent authorities respectively.

Admittedly, Article 11(1) and (4) of Directive 96/82 lays down time-limits only for the first and third of those stages. However, the absence in that provision of a specific time-limit for drawing up external emergency plans does not in itself mean that there is no period within which the Member States are required to comply with the obligation to draw up those plans.

It follows from the interdependence between the internal and external emergency plans, the coordination of which ensures that the mechanism laid down in Article 11 of Directive 96/82 is effective, that the competent authorities are required to draw up the external emergency plans within a period which is not likely to jeopardise the effectiveness of the provisions of Article 11, while taking account of the time needed to finalise those plans, and thus within a reasonable period from when the necessary information is supplied by the operators.

Moreover, although, under Article 11(1) of Directive 96/82, the obligation to draw up external emergency plans is linked to that requiring the operators of the establishments concerned to communicate the necessary information to the competent authorities to enable them to draw up those plans, the fact remains that that provision requires the Member States to ensure that the operators supply the information necessary within the periods prescribed. In those circumstances, the fact that the competent authorities do not have the information necessary within those periods cannot justify the absence of external emergency plans.

(see paras 13-14, 17, 21, 25)