ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Customs union – Customs territory of the Union – Principality of Monaco

(Arts 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 3(2)(b))

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Art. 34 TFEU)

Summary

1. Pursuant to Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the territory of the Principality of Monaco is to be considered to be part of the customs territory of the European Union. As no customs duty or charge having equivalent effect can, consequently, be applied to trade between Monaco and the Member States, goods originating in Monaco, exported directly to a Member State, must be treated as if they originated in those Member States. The result of that assimilation to goods originating in Member States is that goods originating in Monaco are covered by the rules of the Treaty on the free movement of goods.

(see para. 14)

2. Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from requiring the provision of security pending judgment, by a claimant of Monegasque nationality which has brought proceedings before one of the civil courts of that State against a national of that State in order to obtain payment of invoices relating to the delivery of goods assimilated to Community goods, although such a requirement is not imposed on nationals of that Member State.

Admittedly, a measure of that sort has the effect of making traders wishing to bring proceedings subject to different procedural rules according to whether or not they have the nationality of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, the possibility that nationals of other Member States would therefore hesitate to sell goods to purchasers established in that Member State who have the nationality of that State is too uncertain and indirect for it to be possible for that national measure to be regarded as liable to hinder intra-Community trade, for the causal link between the possible distortion of intra-Community trade and the difference in treatment at issue cannot thus be considered to have been established.

(see paras 17, 21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Special non-contributory benefits – Definition

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(2)a, and Annex IIa)

2. Social security for migrant workers – Special non-contributory benefits – Definition

(Art. 48 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 10a)

Summary

1. Article 4(2a) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 631/2004, and of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘mobility’ component of Disability Living Allowance constitutes a special non-contributory cash benefit within the meaning of that provision, referred to in Annex IIa to those regulations.

(see para. 33, operative part 1)

2. Consideration of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 631/2004, and of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, has disclosed nothing capable, having regard to the rules on the free movement of persons, of affecting the validity of that provision, inasmuch as that article allows the award of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to be made subject to conditions as to residence and presence in the Member State concerned.

The provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 on the waiver of residence clauses constitute measures to give effect to Article 48 TFEU taken in order to establish, in the field of social security, the freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU. As regards the special non-contributory benefits mentioned in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, it is permissible for the European Union legislature to adopt, in giving effect to Article 48 TFEU, provisions derogating from the principle of the exportability of social security benefits. In particular, the grant of benefits closely linked with the social environment may legitimately be made subject to a condition of residence in the State of the competent institution.

(see paras 38, 40, 42, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Obligations of the Member States – Duty to recover – Implications (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, recital 13 and Art. 14(3); Commission Decision 2005/315, Art. 5(3)) (see paras 29-31, 41)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Decision ordering recovery of unlawful aid – Defences – Absolutely impossible to implement – Criteria for assessment – Difficulties in implementing – Duty of the Commission and the Member State to work together in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC) (see paras 33-38)

3. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Action before the national court against national implementing measures – Preliminary plea challenging the legality of that decision – Grant by that court of provisional suspension measures – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 88(2) EC; Commission Decision 2005/315) (see paras 45-46)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002 (notified under document No C(2004) 3893) (OJ 2005 L 100, p. 46).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries all the aid granted under the aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – European Union rules – Commission notices on cooperation and on immunity from fines and reduction of fines – Model leniency programme drawn up within the European Competition Network

(Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Commission Notices 2004/C 101/03 and 2006/C 298/11)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition

(Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003)

Summary

1. The Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities and the Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases are not binding on Member States. Further, the latter notice relates only to leniency programmes implemented by the Commission itself. The model leniency programme drawn up within the European Competition network and designed to achieve the harmonisation of some elements of national leniency programmes likewise has no binding effect on the courts and tribunals of the Member States.

(see paras 21-22)

2. The provisions of European Union law on cartels, and in particular Regulation No 1/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding a person who has been adversely affected by an infringement of European Union competition law and is seeking to obtain damages from being granted access to documents relating to a leniency procedure involving the perpetrator of that infringement. It is, however, for the courts and tribunals of the Member States, on the basis of their national law, to determine the conditions under which such access must be permitted or refused by weighing the interests protected by European Union law.

Even if the guidelines set out by the Commission may have some effect on the practice of the national competition authorities, it is, in the absence of binding regulation under European Union law on the subject, for Member States to establish and apply national rules on the right of access, by persons adversely affected by a cartel, to documents relating to leniency procedures. However, in the consideration of such an application for access submitted by a person who is seeking to obtain damages from another person who has taken advantage of such a leniency programme, it is necessary to ensure that the applicable national rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic claims and that they do not operate in such a way as to make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to obtain such compensation and to weigh the respective interests in favour of disclosure of the information and in favour of the protection of that information provided voluntarily by the applicant for leniency. That weighing exercise can be conducted by the national courts and tribunals only on a case‑by‑case basis, according to national law, and taking into account all the relevant factors in the case.

(see paras 23, 30-32, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Aid bringing about improvement in the financial situation of the recipient undertaking without being necessary in order for the aims laid down in Article 87(3) EC to be attained – None – Public funding of the move to terrestrial digital television – Assessment of the criterion of necessity (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 44, 46-48)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para. 63)

3. State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid eligible for the derogation laid down in Article 87(3)(c) EC – Conditions – Transition from analogue to digital broadcasting – Condition of technological neutrality – Assessment (Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission notice COM(2003) 541 final) (see paras 77, 79-81)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 in Case T-21/06 Germany v Commission by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the state aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14) – Infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Road transport – Social provisions – Exceptions – Obligation to install and use recording equipment

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 561/2006, Art. 13(1)(d), second indent)

Summary

The expression ‘materials’ appearing in Article 13(1)(d), second indent, of Regulation No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, amending Regulations Nos 3821/85 and 2135/98 and repealing Regulation No 3820/85 must be interpreted as not covering packaging materials, such as empty bottles, carried by a wine and drinks merchant who runs a shop, makes deliveries to his customers once a week and, when doing so, collects the empty bottles to take to his wholesaler.

The empty bottles carried by that merchant do not constitute goods necessary in carrying out his principal activity. They are not processed or transformed and are neither added to another product nor used in the carrying on of an activity. Nor are they necessary as components, raw materials or ingredients for any product manufactured by such a trader or for works carried out by the latter. Finally, they do not constitute either apparatus or instruments necessary for manufacturing any product.

(see paras 26, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Duty to recover the aid granted – Period within which the aid is to be recovered (Arts 88(2) EC, 226 EC and 249 EC) (see paras 34, 37)

2. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Recipient undertakings that become bankrupt – Aid entered in the schedule of liabilities in order to restore the status quo ante (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 35-36)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent measure (Arts 88(2), second para., EC, 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see para. 41)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline (notified under document number C(2008) 1321).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-100/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2007/14/EC – Detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. 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. 8)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (OJ 2007 L 69, p. 27).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-454/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Aid for New Interline SpA – Recovery

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Duty to recover the aid granted – Period within which the aid is to be recovered (Arts 88(2) EC, 226 EC and 249 EC) (see paras 34, 37)

2. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Recipient undertakings that become bankrupt – Aid entered in the schedule of liabilities in order to restore the status quo ante (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 35-36)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent measure (Arts 88(2), second para., EC, 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see para. 41)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline (notified under document number C(2008) 1321).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 – Commission v Netherlands

(Case C-157/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 43 EC – Freedom of establishment – Notaries – Condition of nationality – Article 45 EC – Connection with the exercise of official authority

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)

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

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;
8

Paragraph 6 of the Law on general freedom of movement of citizens of the Union (Gesetz über die allgemeine Freizügigkeit von Unionsbürgern) of 30 July 2004 (BGBl. 2004 I, p. 1950), as amended by the Law amending the Federal Police Law and other laws (Gesetz zur Änderung des Bundespolizeigesetzes und anderer Gesetze) of 26 February 2008 (BGBl. 2008 I, p. 215), provides as follows: ‘(1) Loss of the right under Paragraph 2(1) may, without prejudice to Paragraph 5(5), be determined and the document attesting to the right of residence or permanent residence under Community law withdrawn and the residence permit or permanent residence permit revoked only on grounds of public policy, security or health (Articles 39(3) and 46(1) of the Treaty …). Entry may also be refused on those grounds. A determination on grounds of public health may be made only if the illness occurs within the first three months from entry. (2) The existence of a criminal conviction shall not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for the adoption of the decisions or measures referred to in subparagraph 1. Only criminal convictions which have not yet been erased from the Central Register may be taken into account, and only in so far as the circumstances on which they are based disclose personal conduct which constitutes a present threat to public policy. There must be a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting a fundamental interest of society. (3) When a decision under subparagraph 1 is made, account must be taken in particular of how long the person concerned has resided in Germany, his age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration in Germany and the extent of his ties to his country of origin. (4) Once a right of permanent residence has been acquired, a determination under subparagraph 1 may be made only on serious grounds. (5) In the case of Union citizens and their family members who have resided in Federal territory for the previous 10 years, and in the case of minors, a determination under subparagraph 1 may be made only on imperative grounds of public security. In the case of minors, this does not apply where the loss of the right of residence is necessary for the best interests of the child. Imperative grounds of public security may exist only if the person concerned, after being convicted of one or more intentional offences, has been definitively sentenced to at least five years’ imprisonment or youth custody or if, on the occasion of the most recent definitive conviction, a term of preventive detention was ordered, where the security of the Federal Republic of Germany is affected or the person concerned poses a terrorist risk. …’
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 – Commission v France

(Case C-549/09)

Failure to fulfil obligations – State aid – Aid granted to fish farmers and fishermen – Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market – Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible and to inform the Commission – Non-implementation – Absolute impossibility of implementation

1. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Obligation – Duty to implement immediately and effectively the Commission’s decision (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 26-29, 31)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to fulfil the obligation to recover unlawful aid – Defences – Absolutely impossible to implement – Assessment criteria – Difficulties in implementing – Member State obliged to make genuine approaches to the undertakings concerned and to suggest alternative solutions to the Commission enabling those difficulties to be overcome – Difficulty in identifying the recipients not justifying non-implementation of the Commission’s decision (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 33-34, 39)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-implementation of a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility (see para. 43)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (OJ 2005 L 74, p. 49) – Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to inform the Commission thereof.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to implement, within the prescribed period, Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen, by recovering from the recipients of the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 4 of that decision;