ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Framework Decision 2001/220 – Role of victims in proceedings

(Council Framework Decision 2001/220, Arts 2, 3 and 8)

2. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Framework Decision 2001/220 – Obligation to promote mediation – Scope

(Council Framework Decision 2001/220, Art. 10(1))

Summary

1. Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Framework Decision 2001/220 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the mandatory imposition of an injunction to stay away for a minimum period, provided for as an ancillary penalty by the criminal law of a Member State, on persons who commit crimes of violence within the family, even when the victims of those crimes oppose the application of such a penalty.

First, the obligations laid down in Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision are intended to ensure that a victim can effectively and adequately take part in the criminal proceedings, which does not imply that a mandatory injunction to stay away cannot be imposed contrary to the wishes of the victim. Second, the procedural right to be heard under the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Framework Decision does not confer on victims any rights in respect of the choice of form of penalties nor in respect of the level of those penalties. Where the criminal law offers protection against acts of domestic violence, the objective is not only to protect the interests of the victim but also other more general interests of society. Lastly, the protection which is the subject of Article 8, which is intended in particular to offer protection suitable to the victim from the offender during the criminal proceedings, cannot be understood as meaning that Member States are also obliged to protect victims from indirect consequences which may, at a later stage, arise as a result of the penalties imposed by the national courts.

Moreover, the fact that it is mandatory to impose an injunction to stay away in accordance with the substantive law at issue does not fall within the field of application of the Framework Decision.

(see paras 56, 60-61, 66-67, 69-70, operative part 1)

2. Article 10(1) of Framework Decision 2001/220 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as permitting Member States, having regard to the particular category of offences committed within the family, to exclude recourse to mediation in all criminal proceedings relating to such offences.

In that regard, in addition to the fact that Article 34(2) EU leaves to national authorities the choice of form and methods necessary to achieve the desired result of framework decisions, Article 10(1) of the Framework Decision does no more than require Member States to seek to promote mediation in criminal cases for offences which they consider appropriate, and consequently the choice of the offences for which mediation is to be available is for the Member States to determine.

(see paras 72, 76, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent right – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Field of application

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 2; Council Directive 65/65)

Summary

A product which was placed on the market in the European Community as a medicinal product for human use before a marketing authorisation was obtained in accordance with Directive 65/65, on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, as amended by Directive 89/341 and, in particular, without undergoing safety and efficacy testing, does not fall within the field of application of Regulation No 1768/92, concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, as that field is defined in Article 2 of that regulation, as amended, and may not be the subject of a supplementary protection certificate.

(see para. 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 93/83 – Satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission – Authorisation from copyright holders – Conditions

(Council Directive 93/83, Art. 2)

Summary

Article 2 of Directive 93/83 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as requiring a satellite package provider to obtain authorisation from the right holders concerned for its intervention in the direct or indirect transmission of television programmes, unless the right holders have agreed with the broadcasting organisation concerned that the protected works will also be communicated to the public through that provider, on condition, in the latter situation, that the provider’s intervention does not make those works accessible to a new public.

(see para. 84, operative part)
The last sentence of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the Member States party to that Convention to ensure that teachers assigned or seconded to the European Schools enjoy, during their secondment or assignment, the same rights to career progression and retirement as those applicable to their national counterparts under the legislation of their Member State of origin.

While the first three sentences of that article place the burden of responsibilities on the Board of Governors, and those responsibilities must be discharged, where appropriate, in collaboration with the governments, its last sentence is worded neutrally, recording the right of teachers to retain their promotion and retirement rights guaranteed by their national rules, without specifying by whom those rights must be guaranteed.

However, those rights could not be guaranteed if the Member States party to the Convention were free to organise their national rules and the provisions governing the assignment or secondment of their teachers to a European School in a way that would deprive those teachers of those rights during the assignment or secondment.

In that regard, the promotion and retirement rights of the teachers assigned or seconded to European Schools are entirely governed by the national legislation of the States concerned and it is, consequently, impossible for the Board of Governors to ensure that those rights are retained where that legislation does not allow them to be retained. Moreover, while the Board of Governors is required to respect that legislation, the fact remains that, first, the application of that legislation to those teachers does not require any intervention on the part of the Board and, second, it is hardly conceivable that the Board could affect the promotion and retirement rights granted to those teachers by their national legislation, given that its powers are limited and strictly defined by the Convention.

Finally, the scope of the terms ‘promotion … rights guaranteed’ by national rules, appearing in the last sentence of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention, and thus the protection granted by that provision to teachers assigned or seconded to the European Schools, may not differ according to their place of origin. Those terms, therefore, require an independent interpretation, which must, inter alia, allow the objective of that provision actually to be achieved and must ensure that teachers do not suffer disadvantages as regards promotion or retirement as a result of their assignment or secondment to a European School.

(see paras 42-44, 52, 53, 56, operative part 1)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Freedom to provide services

–

Derogations

–

Activities connected with the exercise of official authority

–

Notarial activities

–

Excluded

–

Condition of nationality for access to the profession of notary

–

Unlawful (Arts 43 EC and 45, first para., EC) (see paras 55, 57-58, 60-65, 67-69, 73-74, 76-78, 80-86, 90

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC – Access to and practice of the profession of notary – Condition of nationality – Connection with the exercise of official authority.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a condition of nationality for access to the profession of notary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑9/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public health – Directive 2004/23/EC – Setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48).

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 Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 – Commission v Sweden

(Case C‑185/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/24/EC – Electronic communications – Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑258/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2008/1/EC – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply, in the Walloon Region, with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) – Existing installations liable to have an effect on emissions into the air, water and soil and on pollution.

Operative Part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations that do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time‑limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-508/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409/EEC – Derogations from the system of protection for wild birds

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the pre-litigation procedure – Alteration of claims after the reasoned opinion, on account of an amendment to the national legislation – Whether permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paragraphs 19-20)

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of the killing or capturing of protected species – Conditions – No reference in the national legislation to lack of any other satisfactory solution – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 5(a) and 9) (see paragraphs 29-30)

3. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of the killing or capturing of protected species – Conditions – Competent authority’s decision containing precise, sufficient details referring to the reasons for, and to the conditions and requirements of, the directive –Regional legislation not satisfying the conditions set forth in the directive – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 5(a) and 9(1) and (2)) (see paragraphs 36-38)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) – Derogations – Region of Sardinia.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, the region of Sardinia having adopted, and applying, legislation relating to the authorisation of derogations from the rules for the protection of wild birds that does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-302/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State Aid – Aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia – Reductions of social security contributions – Recovery

1. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Conditions – Setting in motion a procedure ensuring that effect is immediately and effectively given to the Commission’s decision (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 35-36, 38)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to perform the duty of recovering unlawful aid – Defences – Absolute impossibility of implementation – Criteria for assessment – Difficulties in implementing – Duty of the Commission and of the Member State to collaborate in seeking a solution compatible with the Treaty (Arts 10 EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 40-42)

3. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Interim suspension measures adopted by the national court – Lawfulness – Conditions (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 45-47)

4. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Obligation – Duty to implement immediately and effectively the Commission’s decision – Legislative steps, intended to ensure the implementation of the Commission’s decision, taken belatedly – Breach of that obligation (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC) (see paras 53-55)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under the aid scheme declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 —

Commission v Cyprus



(Case C‑125/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications networks and services — Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/20/EC — Rights of way — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Necessity of clear, precise transposition — Telecommunications sector — Electronic communications networks and services — Directives 2002/20 and 2002/21 — Member States obliged to guarantee the granting of rights of way on, over or under public property on the basis of transparent procedures applied without discrimination and without delay (European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/20, Art. 4(1), and 2002/21, Art. 11(1)) (see paras 41, 42, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11(1) 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) — Infringement of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Grant and authorisation of rights to install facilities on, over or under public or private property in favour of an undertaking authorised to provide electronic communications networks.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Finds that, by failing to ensure the grant of rights of way on, over or under public property on the basis of transparent procedures, applied without discrimination and without delay, in accordance with Article 11(1) 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) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 – A2A, formerly ASM Brescia v Commission

(Case C-318/09 P)

Appeal – State aid – Aid granted to public utilities – Tax exemptions – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Locus standi – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Article 87 EC – Concept of ‘aid’ – Article 88 EC – Concept of ‘new aid’ – Article 10 EC – Duty to cooperate in good faith – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Articles 1 and 14 – Lawfulness of a recovery order – Principle of legal certainty – Duty to state reasons

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme – Action brought by an undertaking having received individual aid granted under that scheme and that must be recovered – Admissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 55-60)

2. Actions for annulment – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it – Commission decision on the recovery of State aid (see paras 68-70)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 97)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 103-105)

5. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary in order to support the operative part – Plea in law ineffective (see para. 109)

6. Appeals – Pleas in law – Distortion of national law relied on as evidence – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.) (see para. 125)

7. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see para. 131)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑189/03 ASM Brescia v Commission by which that court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;