ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by failing to forward to the Commission of the European Communities for 2001 all necessary information concerning the substances subject to Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, as required under Article 11(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and (b) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 concerning ambient air quality assessment and management, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 96/62 in conjunction with Article 4(1) of that directive and with Directive 1999/30 and Article 1 of Commission Decision 2001/839/EC of 8 November 2001 laying down a questionnaire to be used for annual reporting on ambient air quality assessment under Directives 96/62 and 1999/30;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Rights conferred by a trade mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 5(1) and 12(2))

Summary

Article 5(1) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the scope of protection of a trade mark which has been lawfully acquired on the basis of its distinctive character, the national court must take into account the perception of the public concerned at the time when the sign, the use of which infringes that trade mark, began to be used, since genuine and effective protection of the proprietor’s rights will not be safeguarded if the likelihood of confusion was assessed at a later date.

Where the competent national court finds that the sign in question constituted an infringement of the mark at that time, it is for that court to take such measures as prove to be the most appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case in order to safeguard the proprietor’s rights deriving from Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104; such measures may include, in particular, an order to cease use of that sign.

It is not appropriate, however, to order such measures if it has been established that the trade mark in question has lost its distinctive character, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, so that it has become a common name within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive 89/104, and the trade mark has therefore been revoked.

(see paras 17-18, 20, 24-25, 37, operative part 1-3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Grounds — Erroneous appraisal of evidence properly adduced — Inadmissible except in cases of distortion

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

3. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 63 and 74(1))

Summary

1. It is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value to be attached to the evidence adduced before it. Although it cannot be required to give express reasons for its assessment of the value of each piece of evidence presented to it, it is obliged to provide reasons which will allow the Court of Justice to exercise its judicial review; in particular they must make it possible for the Court to consider whether there has been any distortion of the evidence submitted to the Court of First Instance.

Moreover, the Court of First Instance is free, in its sovereign assessment of the facts, to take account of the fact that a party has refrained from relying on certain facts.

(see paras 22-23)

2. The Court of First Instance is obliged to reject as inadmissible a head of claim in an application brought before it if the essential matters of law and of fact on which the head of claim is based are not indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. It follows that the failure to state such matters in the application cannot be compensated for by putting them forward at the hearing.

(see para. 37)

3. First of all, under Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) may be annulled or altered only on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, failure to comply with the Treaty, with Regulation No 40/94 or with any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of power. Accordingly, the review of that decision by the Community Courts is confined to review of the legality of that decision, and is thus not intended to re-examine the facts which were assessed within the Office.

Second, it follows from Article 74(1) of that regulation that, in proceedings relating to refusal of registration, the Office is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.

Since the Office could not take into account facts which were not put forward before it by the parties, the lawfulness of its decisions cannot be challenged on the basis of such facts. It follows that the Court of First Instance, likewise, cannot take account of evidence intended to prove those facts.

(see paras 50-52)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 – Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Access of Turkish nationals duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State to employment in that Member State and the corresponding right of residence

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC‑Turkey Association Council, Art. 6(1))

2. International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 –Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Access of Turkish nationals duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State to employment in that Member State and the corresponding right of residence

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC‑Turkey Association Council, Art. 6(1) and (2))

Summary

1. The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC‑Turkey Association Council must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker can rely on the rights conferred upon him by that provision only where his paid employment with a second employer complies with the conditions laid down by law and regulation in the host Member State governing entry into its territory and employment. It is for the national court to make the requisite findings in order to establish whether that is the case in respect of a Turkish worker who changed employer prior to expiry of the period of three years provided for in the second indent of Article 6(1) of that decision.

(see paras 34, 36, 54, operative part)

2. The second sentence of Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC‑Turkey Association Council must be interpreted as being intended to ensure that periods of interruption of legal employment on account of involuntary unemployment and long‑term sickness do not affect the rights that the Turkish worker has already acquired owing to preceding periods of employment the length of which is fixed in each of the three indents of that latter provision.

(see paras 41-42, 55, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Equal treatment

(Art. 39(2) EC; Art. 3(1) of Council Regulation No 1408/71)

Summary

The principle of equal treatment as laid down in Article 39(2) EC and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 precludes national legislation under which the competent institution of the Member State of residence denies unemployment benefits to a national of another Member State on the ground that, on the date when the benefit claim was submitted, the person concerned had not completed a specified period of employment in that Member State of residence, whereas there is no such requirement for nationals of that Member State.

(see paras 29, 36, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Free movement of goods

–

Quantitative restrictions

–

Measures having equivalent effect (Art. 28 EC) (see paras 19-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 28 EC – National legislation considering the ‘bake-off’ process (thawing and reheating of pre-baked and frozen bread) to be a process of manufacturing bread and allowing only bakeries to sell bread manufactured in that way.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by treating the process of final baking or reheating of ‘bake-off’ products in the same way as the full process of manufacturing bread and by making it subject to the conditions prescribed by the national legislation with regard to bakeries, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, as far as concerns discrimination based on religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (para. 5

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

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 Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Dumper trucks capable of being incidentally driven on paved public roads

Summary

The fact that dumper trucks designed specifically and primarily for use off paved, public roads have distinctive characteristics which enable them to be driven, incidentally, on such roads does not preclude their classification as dumpers within the meaning of Subheading 8704 10 of the combined nomenclature, in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff.

Even if, in order to be classifiable under that subheading, dumpers must have been specially designed for off-highway use for the transport and unloading of materials, neither the wording of the subheading nor the explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature and the harmonised system indicate that those dumpers must have been designed in such a way that they can be used exclusively off-highway.

(see paras 36-37, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States

–

Obligations

–

Implementation of directives

–

Failure to fulfil obligations

–

National system pleaded as justification

–

Not permissible (Art. 226 EC ) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste‑water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) – Failure to ensure adequate treatment of urban waste water from a number of agglomerations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate treatment was provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtownabbey, Omagh and Portrush by 31 December 2000 at the latest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 23)

2. Transport – Maritime transport – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Council Regulation No 4055/86, Art. 1) (see paras 24-30)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1) – Harbour dues levied on passenger vessels or cargo vessels – Lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within national territory – Harbour dues levied on vehicles aboard ferries – Dues not levied on vehicles travelling between ports in national territory.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force:

– the harbour dues levied on passenger vessels (including cruise ships) or on cargo vessels when they enter into harbour, berth and anchor in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, applying a lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within Greece as compared with cases where transport is to a destination outside Greece,

– harbour dues for the benefit of the harbour funds of the Port Authorities AE, set up by Law No 2932/2001, and of the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, which are levied on vehicles aboard ferries on international routes, while similar dues are not levied on routes between Greek ports,

– the right to levy dues on vehicles aboard vehicle ferries with a foreign port destination for the benefit of municipalities and communities,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries.

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

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 59 and 74(2))

Summary

When hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an opposition to the registration of a sign as a Community trade mark, the Board of Appeal has a discretion, subject to stating reasons for its decision in that regard, as to whether or not to take account in reaching its decision of facts or evidence which the party opposing registration presents for the first time in the written statement in support of its appeal, with the result that it is neither bound to take account of such facts and evidence, nor can consideration of such facts and evidence be automatically excluded.

First, it is apparent from the wording of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, according to which OHIM may disregard facts which were not submitted or evidence which was not produced in due time by the parties, that, as a general rule and unless otherwise specified, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the time‑limits to which such submission is subject under the provisions of Regulation No 40/94 and that OHIM is in no way prohibited from taking account of facts and evidence which are submitted or produced late. However, it is equally apparent from that wording that a party has no unconditional right to have facts and evidence submitted out of time taken into consideration by OHIM.

Second, no reason of principle related to the nature of the proceedings under way before the Board of Appeal or to the jurisdiction of that department precludes it, for the purpose of giving judgment on the appeal before it, from taking into account facts and evidence produced for the first time at the appeal stage.

Third, Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94, which lays down the conditions for bringing an appeal before the Board of Appeal, cannot be interpreted as starting a new time‑limit for the person bringing such an appeal in which to submit facts and evidence in support of his opposition, with the result that such facts and evidence cannot be regarded as having been submitted ‘in due time’ within the meaning of Article 74(2) of the regulation.

(see paras 41-43, 49, 60-62, 64, 67-68)
Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, in particular Article 1(1) (a), is to be interpreted as meaning that a separate production unit of a company, which has distinct equipment and a specialised workforce, whose operation is not affected by that of the other units, and which has a chief production officer who ensures that the work is carried out properly, is responsible for supervision of the entire operation of the unit's installations and ensures that technical questions are solved, comes within the definition of an ‘establishment’ for the purposes of that directive. The fact that decisions concerning the operating expenditure of each unit, the purchase of materials and the costing of products are taken at the company's headquarters, where a joint accounts office is set up, is irrelevant in that respect.

Given that the objective pursued by that directive concerns, in particular, the socio economic effects which collective redundancies may have in a given local context and social environment, the entity in question need not have any legal autonomy, nor need it have economic, financial, administrative or technological autonomy, in order to be regarded as an ‘establishment’. Nor is it essential, in order for there to be an ‘establishment’, for the unit in question to be endowed with a management which can independently effect collective redundancies, or for there to be a geographical separation from the other units and facilities of the undertaking.

(see paras 28, 29, 31, 32, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end‑of‑life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting Legislative Decree No 209 of 24 June 2003 transposing into national law the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end‑of‑life vehicles in a manner contrary to that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5), Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 7(2)(a) and Article 8(3) and (4) of that Directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment – Treatment of urban waste water – Directive 91/271 – Implementation by Member States (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3(1), second para., 4(4), and 5(2) (see paras 19-20, 23-28)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 22)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) – Urban waste water of Sueca, its coastal agglomerations and certain municipalities of La Ribera – Discharge in a sensitive area without adequate treatment.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, the urban waste water of the agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts (El Perelló, Les Palmeres, Mareny de Barrequetes, Playa del Rey and Boga de Mar) and also certain municipalities of the region of La Ribera (Benifaió, Sollano and Almussafes) is treated appropriately before being discharged in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, the latter provision being read together with Article 4(4) of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste

(Council Regulation No 259/93, Annex II)

2. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste

(Council Regulation No 259/93, Annex II)

Summary

1. Heading GC 020, concerning electronic scrap, of the green list of wastes in Annex II to Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Regulation No 2557/2001, is to be interpreted as covering wire cable only if such wire comes from electronic equipment.

(see para. 23, operative part 1)

2. The more flexible system applicable to wastes appearing on the green list of wastes in Annex II to Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Regulation No 2557/2001, namely their not being subject to the essential aspects of the supervision and control procedures established by that regulation, cannot in principle be extended to wastes which do not appear on that list.

In particular, where waste is composed of two materials which, when considered separately, may constitute types of waste which are included on the green list of wastes, it does not automatically follow that such composite waste comes under that list. The conditions under which waste may be processed and the environmental risks associated with the handling of such waste are not necessarily the same and may vary according to whether the waste concerned consists of a composite whole made up of a number of materials or whether each one of those materials constitutes a distinct type of waste.

(see paras 32-33, 42, operative part 2)