ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion — (Art. 226 EC)

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

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services – Directive 96/71 – National rules providing that an undertaking using the services of another undertaking established in another Member State is to act as a guarantor in respect of the minimum remuneration of workers employed by the other undertaking – Restriction on freedom to provide services – Whether justified on grounds of public interest – Social protection of workers

(Art. 49 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 96/71, Art. 5)

Summary

Article 5 of Directive 96/71 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, under which the Member States are to take appropriate measures in the event of non-compliance with the terms of that directive and, in particular, are to ensure that the workers and/or their representatives have available to them adequate procedures for the enforcement of obligations under that directive, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, does not in principle preclude a national system whereby, when subcontracting the conduct of building work to an undertaking established in another Member State, a building contractor established in the Member State concerned becomes liable, in the same way as a guarantor who has waived the defence of prior recourse, for the obligation on that undertaking or that undertaking’s subcontractors to pay the minimum wage to a worker employed by the latter or to pay contributions to a joint scheme for parties to a collective agreement where the minimum wage means the sum payable to the worker after deduction of tax, social security contributions, payments towards the promotion of employment or other such social insurance payments (net pay), even if the safeguarding of workers’ pay is not the primary objective of the national legislation concerned or is merely a subsidiary objective.

If entitlement to minimum rates of pay constitutes a feature of worker protection, which is one of the overriding reasons relating to the public interest which may justify a restriction on freedom to provide services, procedural arrangements ensuring observance of that right, such as the liability of the guarantor, must likewise be regarded as being such as to ensure that protection, since that provision benefits posted workers on the ground that, to the advantage of the latter, it adds to the primary obligant in respect of the minimum rate of pay, namely the employer, a further obligant who is jointly liable with the first debtor and is generally more solvent.

(see paras 28, 34-35, 37, 40, 45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442, amended by Directive 91/156 – Concept – Hydrocarbons which are spilled unintentionally – Contaminated soil and groundwater – Included

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(a))

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442, amended by Directive 91/156 – Holder of waste – Concept – Spilled hydrocarbons – Manager of a service station and petroleum undertaking supplying it – Included – Conditions

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(c))

Summary

1. Hydrocarbons which are unintentionally spilled and cause soil and groundwater contamination are waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156, in so far as those substances are a production residue which the holder cannot re-use without prior processing and which he discards, albeit involuntarily, at the time of the production or distribution operations which relate to them.

The same is true for soil contaminated by hydrocarbons, since they cannot be separated from the land which they have contaminated and cannot be recovered or disposed of unless that land is also subject to the necessary decontamination. In addition, the fact that soil is not excavated has no bearing on its classification as waste.

(see paras 46-47, 50, 52-53, operative part)

2. Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, distinguishes between practical recovery or disposal operations or the elimination of waste, which it makes the responsibility of any ‘holder of waste’, whether producer or possessor, and the financial burden of those operations, which, in accordance with the principle of polluter pays, it imposes on the persons who cause the waste, whether they are holders or former holders of the waste or even producers of the product from which the waste came.

Hydrocarbons spilled by accident as the result of a leak from a service station’s storage facilities which were bought by that service station to meet its operating needs, are in the possession of the service station’s manager. Moreover, it is the manager who, for the purpose of his operations, has them in stock when they became waste and who may be considered to be the person who ‘produced’ them within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 75/442. Under those conditions, since he is at once the possessor and the producer of that waste, the service station manager must be considered to be their holder within the meaning of Article 1(c).

Nevertheless, if the poor condition of the service station’s storage facilities and the leak of hydrocarbons can be attributed to a disregard of contractual obligations by the petroleum undertaking which supplies that service station, or to any actions which could render that undertaking liable, that petroleum undertaking could be considered, as a result of its activities, to have ‘produced waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 75/442 and it may accordingly be regarded as the holder of the waste.

(see paras 58-61, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987 – Scope – Definition of pay – Application of national law – National legislation including compensation for unfair dismissal – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 80/987, Art. 2(2))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987 – Scope – Definition of pay – National legislation including compensation for unfair dismissal awarded by judgment or administrative decision and excluding claims established in a conciliation procedure – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – Duties and powers of the national court

(Council Directive 80/987, Art. 2(2))

Summary

1. According to Article 2(2) of Council Directive 80/987 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, it is for national law to specify the term ‘pay’ and to define it.

In this regard, the fact that Directive 80/987 links the payment of remuneration to reference periods does not exclude its application to compensation for unfair dismissal. If, therefore, the word ‘pay’, as defined by national law, includes that compensation, the latter falls within the ambit of Directive 80/987 as it stood even before it was amended by Directive 2002/74.

(see paras 31-33, operative part 1)

2. In connection with the application of Council Directive 80/987 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, where, according to the national legislation in question, claims corresponding to compensation for unfair dismissal, awarded by judgment or administrative decision, fall within the definition of ‘pay’, identical claims, established in a conciliation procedure such as that in question in the circumstances of this case, must also be regarded as employees’ claims arising from contracts of employment or employment relationships and as relating to pay for the purposes of that directive. Workers who have been unfairly dismissed are in a comparable situation in so far as they are entitled to compensation where they are not reinstated.

The national court must therefore set aside domestic legislation which, in breach of the principle of equality, excludes the latter claims from the definition of ‘pay’ under that legislation.

(see paras 35, 38, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Scope – Contract unrelated to the activities in the general interest of the contracting authority – Included – Contract aiming to subcontract the activities of a local or regional authority operating as a service provider – Included

(Council Directive 92/50, Arts 1(a) and (b), 8 and 11)

Summary

Article 8 of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 1(a) and (b) and Article 11(1) of the directive, provides that, where contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a service provider and a regional or local authority have as their object the services listed in Annex I A to the directive, they must be the subject of an open, restricted or negotiated procedure within the meaning of that directive.

In that regard, the fact that the contract does not fall within the scope of activities in the general interest of that local or regional authority, but comprises an independent economic activity, which is clearly distinct and subject to competition, does not show that that contract is not a public contract for the purposes of Articles 8 and 11 of Directive 92/50. Article 1(a) of that directive makes no distinction between public contracts awarded by a contracting authority for the purposes of fulfilling its task of meeting needs in the general interest and those which are unrelated to that task.

It is likewise irrelevant that the contracting authority intends to operate as a provider of services itself and that the contract in question aims, in that context, to subcontract a part of the activities to a third party.

(see paras 13, 16, 18)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Community transit – External Community transit – Offences or irregularities – Failure to notify the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place where the offence occurred – Effect on incurring of a customs debt – Lack – Effect on the recovery of the customs debt

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 203(1); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 379)

Summary

Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, in conjunction with Article 379 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, must be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt has been incurred where a consignment placed under the external Community transit procedure has not been presented at the customs office of destination and the failure to notify to the principal the period in which the proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence was actually committed may be furnished to the office of departure does not prevent the customs debt being incurred. That notification nevertheless constitutes a prerequisite for the recovery of the customs debt by the customs authorities, so that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs may take steps to recover the debt only if it has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which to furnish the proof requested and such proof has not been provided within that period.

(see paras 23, 26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Relief from import duty – Concept of personal property – Passenger vehicle made available to a natural person by his employer and used for both business and private purposes – Included

(Council Regulation No 918/83, Arts 1(2)(c), 2 and 3)

Summary

Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 3 of Regulation No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger vehicle which is made available to a natural person by his employer and is used by that person for both business and private purposes may be regarded as an item of personal property capable of benefiting from a relief from customs duty under Articles 2 and 3 of that regulation.

A combined reading of those provisions shows that, in order to qualify for relief from customs duty, the item of personal property must in particular have been in the possession of, and used by, the person concerned, as personal property, for at least six months before the date on which he ceased to have his normal place of residence in the country of origin.

First, in the absence of an express provision to that effect, exclusive personal use cannot be considered necessary in all circumstances for an item of property to be regarded as personal property, so that a passenger vehicle used both for private and business purposes must be capable of being regarded as such an item of personal property.

Secondly, the term ‘possession’ in Article 3 of the regulation implies that the relief need not be limited to property forming part of the assets of the person concerned for at least six months before his transfer of residence but also concerns other assets over which the person concerned exercises, effective and genuine control throughout the same period.

(see paras 14, 21-22, 27, 29, 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Jurisdiction to order provisional, including protective, measures – Definition of provisional, including protective, measures – Hearing of witnesses to enable the applicant to decide whether to bring proceedings – Excluded

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 24)

Summary

Article 24 to the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that a measure ordering the hearing of a witness for the purpose of enabling the applicant to decide whether to bring a case, determine whether it would be well founded and assess the relevance of evidence which might be adduced in that regard is not covered by the notion of ‘provisional, including protective, measures’.

In the absence of any justification other than that interest of the applicant, the grant of such a measure does not pursue the aim of the jurisdiction laid down by way of derogation by Article 24 of the Convention, which is to avoid causing loss to the parties as a result of the long delays inherent in any international proceedings and to preserve a factual or legal situation so as to safeguard rights the recognition of which is otherwise sought from the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the case.

(see paras 12-13, 17, 25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — Regulation No 1139/98 — Compulsory particulars as to the presence of material derived from GMOs — Exemption — Formulae for infants and young children — Whether the derogation applies — Breach of the precautionary principle — None

(Council Regulation No 1139/98, Art. 2(2)(b))

Summary

Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation No 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112, as amended by Regulation No 49/2000, is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides from the obligation, laid down in Article 2(1) and (3) of that regulation, to state on the labelling of foodstuffs that material derived from certain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is present, where such presence is the result of adventitious contamination and does not exceed a de minimis threshold of 1% also applies to foodstuffs intended for the particular nutritional use of infants and young children.

That interpretation cannot be called into question on the basis of the precautionary principle, which presupposes that there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health. The GMOs to which Regulation No 1139/98 refers can be placed on the market only if they have first been authorised following a risk assessment intended to ensure that, in the light of the conclusions of the assessment, they are safe for the consumer. It follows that the precautionary principle, where relevant, is part of such a decision-making process.

(see paras 55-56, 61, 63-64, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers — Family benefits — Community rules against aggregation — Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 574/72 — Worker entitled to benefits in the State of employment for children also giving entitlement for benefits in another Member State, place of the worker’s residence and of employment of the worker’s spouse — Suspension of entitlement to allowances in the State of employment up to the amount of the allowances paid by the Member State of residence

(Council Regulation No 574/72, Art. 10(1)(b)(i))

Summary

Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the exercise by the spouse of the person entitled to a family benefit in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, of a professional or trade activity in the Member State of residence of the children suspends entitlement to allowances in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 up to the amount of the child-raising allowances provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence, irrespective of who is designated as being directly entitled to the family allowances by the legislation of that Member State.

(see paras 33-34, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Restriction on the placing on the market and use of dangerous substances and preparations – Directive 76/769 – Exhaustive character of the provisions – Inability of a Member State to lay down other conditions – Possible exceptions in the case of application of specific Community provisions

(Council Directive 76/769, as amended by Directive 94/60)

Summary

Directive 76/769 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, as amended by Directive 94/60, must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to impose on the placing on the market and use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is included in Annex I thereto conditions other than those which the directive lays down, without prejudice to the application of other relevant Community provisions laying down specific conditions for that product.

(see para. 49, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Conditions for establishment— Discretion of the Community institutions — Judicial review — Limits

(Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109)

2. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures concerning imports from the overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin — Principle of proportionality — Judicial review — Limits

(Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109(2))

3. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures concerning imports from the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures which do not put in question the preferential status of goods originating in those countries — Exceptional and temporary nature of those measures

(Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109(1))

Summary

1. The Community institutions have been given a wide discretion in the application of Article 109 of Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories, which empowers them to take or authorise safeguard measures when certain conditions are met. In those circumstances, the Community Courts must restrict themselves to considering whether the exercise of that discretion contains a manifest error or constitutes a misuse of power or whether the Community institutions clearly exceeded the bounds of their discretion. The depth of the Court’s review must be limited in particular where the Community institutions have to reconcile divergent interests and thus select options within the context of the policy choices which are their own responsibility.

The status of that provision as an exception, which flows from its very nature, does not in any way diminish the discretion which the Commission has when it has the difficult task of reconciling divergent interests within the context of the policy choices which are its own responsibility.

(see paras 53-55, 57)

2. As regards judicial review of compliance with the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 109(2) of Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories, bearing in mind the wide discretionary power enjoyed by the Commission in particular in matters concerning safeguard measures provided for in Article 109(1) of that decision, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate in terms of the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.

(see para. 84)

3. Article 109 of Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) expressly authorises the Commission to take safeguard measures in the situations to which it refers. The fact that the Commission adopted this type of measure in respect of certain products originating in the OCTs does not undermine the preferential status which products originating in those countries enjoy under Article 101(1) of that decision, a safeguard measure being, by its very nature, exceptional and temporary.

(see para. 92)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement terminated before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion — Inadmissibility

(Art. 226, second para., EC)

Summary

Under the second paragraph of Article 226 EC, the Commission may bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations before the Court only if the Member State concerned has failed to comply with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission for that purpose.

Furthermore, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.

An action for failure to fulfil obligations is therefore inadmissible where the national measure which is the sole object of the action has been exhausted before the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired and even before the letter of formal notice was sent.

(see paras 13-14, 16-17)